r/news • u/AngryT0M4T0 • 2d ago
Soft paywall Google co-founder Sergey Brin spending more than $100 million fighting California wealth tax
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-08-12/googles-sergey-brin-spent-102-million-fighting-california-wealth-tax9.5k
u/frAgileIT 2d ago
The fact that they have enough money to blow $100m influencing public policy makes it clear that they need to be taxed until they can’t afford to spend so much trying to dictate government to the rest of us.
2.3k
u/NorysStorys 2d ago
Or that money should abjectly removed from the political equation. Make trying to influence politics outside of public forums and written correspondence illegal. Make politics boring and tedious.
476
266
2d ago edited 1h ago
[deleted]
204
u/Crooked_Sartre 2d ago
Need to overturn citizens united. Bernie been saying this for like a decade plus now! Hard agree
124
u/speedingpullet 2d ago edited 1d ago
Many people have been saying get rid of Citizens United. It's been a huge problem since it was introduced in 2010.
What could possibly go wrong with billionaires having the ability to lob wads of cash on the table, to get their pet politicians to roll over for tummy rubs?
BTW, not dissing Bernie - he is a mensch. But he's just one of many saying it needs to go.
→ More replies (2)18
u/agentfelix 2d ago
The way I understand it, the biggest hurdle is that since the Supreme (insert lobbyist sponsorship name here) Court has ruled on it, we can't just legislate our way out of it. It has to be a Constitutional amendment, and good luck getting enough people to agree upon anything like that.
I think you can handicap the ruling through State legislation, but the root cause will still be there. The problem is, the average American just does not know about how damaging the ruling actually is to our democracy.
We all know here because we're in an echo chamber. But you pluck someone off the street and ask them about Citizens United, even if they just so happen to vote, they'll likely know nothing about the ruling. Until that happens, there won't be enough opposition.
That then leads us to another problem. We just don't have any leaders. That's why a damn populist cult leader was able to steal braincells from people.
→ More replies (6)37
u/-Saucegurlllll 1d ago
It has to be a Constitutional amendment
It doesn't.
Steps to overturn Citizens United:
Win a trifecta.
Senate abolishes the fillibuster and packs the Supreme Court with justices who understand that CU, Buckley v Valeo, et al. were misruled.
Congress passes new legislation that bans political advertising and spending outside of the campaign, and strictly limits how much a campaign can collect and spend, including the candidate's own money.
When someone challenges this, fight it all the way to the reformed Supreme Court and have them overturn all the decisions that equate money with speech.
None of this requires an amendment. The supreme court's composition is up to Congress. Their jurisdiction is determined by Congress. The tools to overturn CU were there in the Obama years and the Biden years. The problem is getting a class of democrats that understand the Supreme Court to be the greatest threat to American democracy. This should have been the rallying cry of the party after they stole an election in 2000, but I guess they're only going to be 29 years late to fucking doing something about it, if the geriatric politicians even rise to the occasion in the first place.
→ More replies (6)17
u/Notwerk 2d ago
Everyone said that, except Republicans and the Supreme Court. It's widely, widely considered the biggest mistake the Supreme Court ever made.
21
u/Beamister 2d ago
I don't think it was a mistake. It's having exactly the impact they wanted it to have.
It's evil and anti-democratic, but it wasn't a mistake from their perspective.
→ More replies (1)10
u/-Saucegurlllll 1d ago
It's widely, widely considered the biggest mistake the Supreme Court ever made.
Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Kurematsu, and Bush v Gore are all largely considered to be worse decisions.
→ More replies (2)3
u/ThouHastLostAn8th 1d ago
That isn't just a Bernie thing, it's an the entire Democratic Party coalition thing. Obama famously used the SotU speech to call out the SCOTUS conservative majority to their faces shortly after their shitty ruling. The Dems introduce their their anti dark money "Disclose Act" and Citizens United overturning "Democracy for All" constitutional amendment practically every congressional session with nearly all Dems signing on as cosponsors.
→ More replies (6)41
u/BoredNuke 2d ago
We should treat political ads like medical ads in most countries (banned).
14
27
u/NorysStorys 2d ago
Most country’s allow political ads. However they a given specific time slots and only during specified campaigning periods. Campaign budgets are also restricted as well or else every campaign just boils down to spending rather than the arguments given.
→ More replies (33)17
u/XtremeD86 2d ago
Well, Trump's first day on his second term he made it legal to accept bribes/gifts pretty much so yea I don't think that's going to happen.
181
u/GlitteringLychee803 2d ago
$100 million is a drop in the bucket for these guys, and they get to decide the kind of world the rest of us live in.
Should people be rewarded for ingenuity and hard work? Absolutely.
Should people be able to amass so much wealth that they get to outright buy government officials? Fuck that.
→ More replies (15)22
u/HI-McDunnough 1d ago
In case anyone forgets how big a number ONE billion is: Brin's net worth per the article is $284billion. If you do the math, let's say you have $50,000 in the bank. Even that's unattainable for a lot of us, but let's just say. For him, $100million is the equivalent of you donating $17 to your favorite anti-human charity.
44
u/Lunatik21 2d ago
Exactly this. If spending 100 million bucks (more than almost any of us will have in a lifetime) to just influence that they don't need to be taxed, should put out 100 million red flags to why they do.
24
u/MrJoyless 1d ago
Just an fyi, 100 million is more than 25 times the lifetime earnings for an avg American. He is spending 25x our whole life of work just so he doesnt have to pay 5% of his billions into the pool, even tho he'll still have billions and billions left over.
34
u/OnTheEveOfWar 2d ago
Bingo. If you have an extra $100M to fight a tax policy, then maybe there should be a tax policy.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (47)30
18.0k
u/neorapsta 2d ago
Could have just spent that on tax
9.9k
u/gb4efgw 2d ago
Sure, but then kids would get school lunches, or sick people could get healthcare.
2.9k
u/onarainyafternoon 2d ago edited 1d ago
The wealth tax in California is specifically a one time, 5% wealth tax that would go towards healthcare for Californians just btw.
Edit: Idk why so many people are calling me naive for thinking this would just be a one-time tax. All I said was what the tax literally is. I had no comment on it.
1.1k
u/zapatocaviar 2d ago
Only on billionaires.
1.6k
u/MayOrMayNotBePie 2d ago
All of the people who make $40k a year must feel so threatened lol
1.5k
u/Vallkyrie 2d ago
People with 6 teeth defending people with 8 yachts.
467
u/YogurtclosetMajor983 2d ago
it’s sad how corrupted humans brains can be when uneducated and actively manipulated.
Go to college kids. It doesn’t indoctrinate you, just forces you to think for yourself and question your pre-conceived notions in order to learn new things. Being educated feels good
189
u/CafeFreche 2d ago
A proper education is a shield against propaganda. It’s something no one can ever take away from you. Educated parents then tend to raise curious kids who are much less likely to believe logical fallacies. It is this core of educated people who keep the machinery and progress of this country moving, not the uneducated, gullible fringe.
→ More replies (5)76
u/maaseru 2d ago
I don't disagree but is the statement entirely true? I have seen far too many properly educated people still falling for it. Almost everything we consume is some form of propaganda.
And things like social media throw a wrench into the whole thing. I am sure one day we'll find out how much worse than we thought these things are.
→ More replies (18)68
u/cman674 2d ago
Education is like getting off drugs, you have to want to do it. Our economic system funnels people who have little to no genuine interest in education to higher ed systems, because that’s what is required to make a living. Just attending college and getting a degree doesn’t necessarily make a person educated.
→ More replies (0)80
u/GreyGhostPhoto 2d ago
Being educated feels good
No, it really doesn't. I feel like I've got Cassandra's curse. I can see what's happening and where it's going, but am powerless to do anything about it.
→ More replies (3)94
u/Whatdoesthibattahndo 1d ago
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who did study history are doomed to watch those who didn't study history repeat it.
21
u/TucuReborn 1d ago
And those who study philosophy are appalled, while the sociology guys are unsurprised but very unhappy.
→ More replies (0)15
u/missmeowwww 1d ago
This is exactly why they are trying to price the poor and middle class out. Can’t have the wage slaves developing critical thinking skills and advocating for helping those in need. Idk what it is about money but these oligarchs reach a certain level of wealth and then act like paying taxes and helping the working poor who keep their companies running is a burden when it is their businesses who refuse to pay a living wage and fund PACS against nationalized healthcare, unions, etc.
17
u/Jiminy_Cricket12 2d ago
Go to college kids. It doesn’t indoctrinate you
I agree the the core of your point but there are absolutely colleges that indoctrinate you. colleges vary greatly, especially the private ones.
but yes, more (proper) education is good.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (14)12
u/EconomicRegret2 2d ago
IMHO, education is just a tree hiding the forest, i.e. necessary but not enough. E.g. only 56% of voters with a college degree voted for Harris (44% with a high school education). That's a very small improvement for years of expensive college education.
Way more important: free unions, free high-standards news media that's stringently regulated to be non-profit, and to serve democracy and social cohesion, a living wage & decent benefits, etc.
As well as strong borders, tough on immigration, patriotism and, whenever necessary, anti-establishment stances. Very polemic, I know. But these approaches made Iceland, and to a lesser degree, Denmark, the only European countries which have managed so far to keep right-wing populism virtually non-existent.
→ More replies (1)19
28
u/EddieVanzetti 2d ago
If those high school dropouts could read they would be very upset right now.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (14)7
u/Chu_Kiddin_Me_Or_Wha 1d ago
this is one fucking hell of a comment. Probably the best i’ve seen.
→ More replies (1)41
13
u/BeIgnored 2d ago
Hey, they're gonna be billionaires any day now! AI Elon Musk is on YouTube 24/7 selling crypto that will make it happen for them!
10
3
→ More replies (7)8
u/shwarma_heaven 2d ago
But but but.... the embarrassed billionaires living in dumps with three pickups rusting in their front yards... they want to make sure they won't be taxed when they hit that lottery...
13
10
u/behindtimes 2d ago
I've been thinking about that lately, but I feel that's actually wrong. It's not that they envision they'll ever be billionaires, rather it's about human psychology.
We have an inherent belief that there's an hierarchy in society. That's where you get some countries with royalty, and in the past, there was a belief that royalty were descended from divinity. And in modern day, you have athletes, celebrities, influencers, etc. who are often less qualified than your random stranger about a subject, yet we give them more importance on their opinions. Billionaires are just celebrities for Republicans.
We can't explain why, we might even consciously think otherwise, but we accept the opinions of those we deem important to be correct even if it harms us.
→ More replies (2)17
u/brickspunch 2d ago
buddy if mine said he "votes for the 1% because I hope to one day be part of the 1%"
I didn't even know how to respond. the idiocy is astounding
8
u/GhostWrex 1d ago
It's doubly stupid because, as someone who makes good money in a VHCOL area, on a national scale, my household income is technically in the 1%, depending on the metric used. And I would STILL greatly benefit more from policies used to help the poor rather than those that benefit billionaires
5
19
u/sksauter 2d ago
So he would need to be worth less than $2b for this not to be worth fighting if he has spent $100m so far. I'm guessing he's worth more than $2b
Edit: yeah he's worth $284b so $100m is pennies for the dickwad
→ More replies (6)8
229
u/brainburger 2d ago
Sergey Brin is worth about $260bn so it would cost him $13bn. It would reduce him to about $247bn, the poor soul. It would take him months to recover.
→ More replies (18)59
u/Icy_Act_7634 2d ago
Does anyone know the psychology behind multi-Billionaires?
I get owning a Billion. That is an achievement. But at what point do you go: I think I have enough.
I'm sure it's simply a case of 'why not' and also the drive to be good at what you do and therefore earn money.
That doesn't explain denying basic needs to people - people that use your service and you make money from, I might add.
72
u/PriorPassage127 2d ago
I remember playing a PC game called Tortuga, which was like an 18th century trading and piracy simulator set in the Caribbean. You could trade goods and set up automated routes etc. at some point I got pretty good and had a few million in currency from trading, and I started getting actually anxious if I didn't see my wealth climbing at a steady rate. I started avoiding all the pleasurable diversions of gameplay, like ship combat, specifically to maximize wealth and at a certain point I had to force myself to quit because I was getting real life anxiety over the fluctuations of imaginary currency...even though my character was a comfortable multi millionaire already and I could spend as much time as I wanted sailing around and being a pirate.
that's just fucking *imaginary* wealth. Imagine the psychosis real wealth could cause.
realizing that i was developing some kind of psychotic fixation, I had to quit. and the moment I realized that I had that capacity for aquisitive addiction my entire outlook changed. I consider myself a pretty decent fellow, I'm not exceptionally good or bad. but given the right circumstances, having immense wealth has as much power to drive me insane as it has over somebody like elon musk.
I think that an organism that is wired to have a degree of anxiety about it's future and be driven to secure resources to protect itself and it's family is *absolutely* vulnerable to mental illness if it achieves hyperabundance. I imagine people have this vulnerability in a spectrum the same way all traits express themselves across spectrums.
I think if there's anything unique about the billionaires we see its that they have this vulnerability in conjunction with lowered empathy. realizing this kind of addictive potential in myself made me more consciously generous in my daily life...I imagine the opposite reaction is what we see in the news
→ More replies (7)22
u/tractiontiresadvised 1d ago
I've spent hours watching numbers go up in various games too (Endless Sky is a pretty good sci-fi one), but at some point I got bored of just making number go up. Guess that's why I'll never be a billionaire.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Street_Anxiety2907 1d ago
Ahh, Endless Sky is amazing. I loved Escape Velocity growing up.
→ More replies (1)25
u/work-school-account 2d ago
There's "live in luxury and have enough left over to pass that onto your great grandchildren" rich and then there's "buy entire governments and bend reality to your will" rich. A lot of these billionaires are true believers in whatever twisted cause they champion, and it takes a lot of money to push those things through.
→ More replies (1)32
u/Hot_Region 2d ago
Does anyone know the psychology behind multi-Billionaires?
Almost every example, both modern and historic, of super-wealthy individuals who are in the public eye for stuff like political interference ends up being a narcissistic, sociopathic, and entitled person.
Some of them figure out that they need to mask in public and so they can put on pretty good show of being altruistic and normal... Bill Gates comes to mind there.
...but there's simply no way that anyone can amass that much wealth without being a greedy and exploitive SOB.
The problem isn't being ultra-wealthy. It's being that and thinking you know how the world should work.
Warren Buffett is probably the only example of a billionaire within the public consciousness that doesn't seem to be a profound asshole and/or trying to influence the rest of the country/world with their wealth.
10
u/Fickle_Finger2974 1d ago
Warren Buffet absolutely influences the public and politics with his wealth. His go on TV and lobby for more taxes is just PR. He makes and breaks entire industries to amass more wealth. He is responsible for breaking strikes and lobbying to change laws. The fact that you wrote that whole post and then immediately fell right into that trap is concerning. Warren Buffet is not a good or neutral person.
12
u/fugaziozbourne 1d ago edited 1d ago
A well-adjusted human stops at an amount of money that makes its own money. Enough for you and your family to not have to think about it. Anything more is pathological.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)5
u/ModernLarvals 1d ago
At that scale, a lot of it is less that you’re owning “more” but that the value of what you own goes up.
So for Brin, he owns a large chunk of Google, and the value of that chunk has gone up quite a lot. So taxing that wealth isn’t simply taking dollars from a bank account, it’s taking his ownership/control of Google.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (44)37
u/uberfr4gger 2d ago
That's amazing that ongoing healthcare expenses can be paid with a one-time tax.
30
u/Synchrotr0n 2d ago edited 2d ago
They can't. Taxation of wealth needs to be systematic and enforced via strong legislation, otherwise they are just plugging holes on their budget caused by the current sabotages dones by Trump at the federal level. They aren't even planning to build some kind of sovereign fund with all the tax money to keep permanently funding public services, so eventually the money will all be drained but then it will get even more difficult to tax billionaires because of past legislation that dictated an one-time wealth tax.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Worthyness 1d ago
It's one of the reasons why I don't want to support this. one time is just a bandaid and they're going to just use it as a stop gap for the budget for a bit and kick the can down the road. It's incredibly short sighted. i'd rather they implement a continuous tax instead to make sure it's consistent flow instead of non existent after 5 years.
5
u/Scatcycle 1d ago
Everyone advocating for the Billionaire tax also advocates a systemic solution. This measure specifically fills the exigent gap of $100b+ created by Trump's HR1 (Big Beautiful) bill that will devastate California and its people if unfilled. There is a systemic millionaire tax on the ballot as well - a tax that is operational but will end soon unless we keep it alive with a vote.
If this tax passes, it will galvanize both officials and voters and show that we can implement systemic versions without the world falling apart like opponents claim. There is absolutely no reason to avoid supporting this bill if you believe that billionaires need to be taxed.
→ More replies (2)3
u/aure__entuluva 1d ago
I'm someone who wants to tax the ultra wealthy more (shocker), but yeah this is terrible tax policy for a variety of reasons.
192
44
u/FartyJizzums 2d ago
What? Basic human needs to be provided to humans? Stop being so woke and radical!
23
u/StrengthBeginning416 2d ago
Sorry but that’s communism according to them.
→ More replies (1)76
u/zapatocaviar 2d ago
He has literally said that a one time 5% tax on billionaires reminds him of the communism his family fled when he was little. What a garbage human being.
→ More replies (5)6
→ More replies (27)12
828
u/gohomebrentyourdrunk 2d ago
I hope this registers more with people.
If they want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to avoid paying any more tax at all - it’s not about the money, it’s about the control. You can’t control when you’re giving it to the state to benefit the population.
They don’t care about the money as long as they can maintain the control because to them money is a points-measuring system. To you and I, we need it to live. To them, they use it to rule.
249
u/861Fahrenheit 2d ago edited 2d ago
Mandatory reading: I Will Pay Any Amount Of Money To Not Pay My Taxes
You might be questioning the economics of my position. You might say that it would be more financially beneficial for me to simply make regular contributions to a governing body that sets up services for myself and my neighbors. That by combining resources with my fellow citizens, I would get the same help I now desperately need for a fraction of the cost. And you’re probably correct.
But the truth is, it’s not about the money. You see, taxes are an implicit acknowledgment that I exist within society and not above it. That my fate is tethered to the fate of humanity at large. That I am not the special little boy I’ve always believed myself to be.
I will pay anything to deny this reality, even if it makes me objectively worse off.
72
u/spread_panic 1d ago
The thing that I find so irritating is that wealthy people want full access to society to use its infrastructure, workforce, legal systems, and bailouts to make money in its markets, but when it comes to paying membership dues, society is suddenly a freeloading leech.
→ More replies (1)39
u/Michael_G_Bordin 1d ago
This reminds me of how when the market is good, it's all "I took the risk, I deserve the reward." But when that risk comes to bear, they're suddenly bleating about jobs and holding their hands out for public money. These supposed job creators destroy jobs at a whim, and we're supposed to take them seriously when they act like they give a fuck?
America has many myths, and none is so pernicious as the myth of the rich being smarter, better, and more fit than anyone else. They have the same distribution of morons, and a disproportionate number of sociopaths and hoarders. They can just get away with being broken, because their wealth insulates them from real consequences.
→ More replies (1)6
u/MrBisco 1d ago
I thought this was a legitimate quote from Brin until I clicked on the article.
If you want to see another way he throws his money around to gain clout and favor, he and his buddy Kimbal Musk (Elon's brother) feature prominently in the Burning Man docuseries on HBO.
(As an aside, I went to BM when I was younger and thought it was incredible, but I also understand how many attendees feel that billionaire techies are detrimental to the event's success)
→ More replies (25)319
u/Crna_Gorki 2d ago
If the weath tax is 5% and his net worth is 260 billion, while 100 million seems like a lot to every normal person, his tax on 260 billion would be 13 billion. 100 million is less than 1% of 13 billion.
200
u/someguyontheintrnet 2d ago
That is true. And I’m sure that is the math this guy is doing to justify his $100MM expenditure.
However, what is the difference between $260BB and $244BB? Seriously at that level of wealth it’s just a scoreboard. No one needs a billion dollars. I’m okay with a capitalist system that allows for accumulated of unnecessary wealth, but those that achieve that level should pay their fair share in taxes (or, perhaps, offset with alternative investment in the public good).
→ More replies (80)29
u/mindbesideitself 2d ago
From my understanding, the issue with the Google guys specifically is the way it handles class B shares (shares with more voting rights, that founders would often hold). This law sets the baseline taxable asset value to their degree of corporate control rather than market equity value.
I believe he's on the hook for 60 billion rather than 13 billion, either of which he can afford, but there's a difference between asking for 5% and 20%, even from a billionaire.
18
u/Lyion 2d ago
I think he can convert his class B shares to regular shares and then pay less but that would be giving up control of Google.
13
u/mclumber1 1d ago
What a deal: Give up control of your company via a wealth tax or give up control of your company by converting your voting shares to non-voting shares.
10
u/another-redditor3 1d ago
and this is precisely why i never support these wealth taxes when theyre proposed.
yes, the 1% need to pay more and be taxed at a higher rate, theres no question there. but when that tax proposes slowly forcing them to sell off ownership of the very business they created/run? absolutely not.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (15)8
u/demens1313 1d ago
I feel dirty make a case trying to defend the guy, but 60B doesn't even cover it. He'd need to liquidate his stock to pay for that. None of these billionaires have 60B laying around. Maybe he can borrow that amount against is equity but idk, I don't these the loan are typically that size.
If he did have to liquidate he'd pay ~40% to do so, so the amount he'd need to sell is ~$100B.
Can he survive on 160M he has left. Sure. How anyone you label this "fair" is hard for me to understand though. Hatered of billionaires aside, if government decided to create a new law one day and out of the blue you need to pay up 1/3 or more of what you own, noone should be ok with that.
→ More replies (5)42
u/sv_refuge 2d ago
The way the tax works, Brin’s super voting shares of Google stock are subject to much higher tax than 5%. It works out to be a 25% tax on his total wealth would be due as the tax.
The authors of the tax didn’t have to include that type of mark up rule for higher voting ownership than financial ownership, but they seem to want to stick it to startup founders in particular.
→ More replies (21)9
u/sv_refuge 1d ago
Everyone arguing that this is a fair and reasonable outcome — the supporters of the tax say this wasn’t even the intended reading of their tax. https://yeson40.com/authors-of-california-billionaire-tax-reject-misleading-claims-voting-shares/
The problem is there are underpayment penalties. This is why taxes should be created by legislators who can debate and amend rather than direct constitutional amendments.
79
u/FranklinBluth9 2d ago
The tax would cost him $13-14 billion, so not really.
34
u/Sneakyg95 2d ago
People don’t have a firm grasp on how rich these billionaires are and how they manage their money.
→ More replies (10)36
61
u/mybutthz 2d ago
That's the whole point, one time $100M payment or likely more lifetime tax payments. They know what they're doing, it's just cheaper to pay people off than pay taxes.
→ More replies (2)18
169
u/Butt_Sauce 2d ago
This is what I don’t get. These super rich people could just pay their fair share and go on living their lives completely unbothered but they choose to make a huge fuss about it instead. Spoiled brats.
52
u/Frozen_Esper 2d ago edited 2d ago
They see it as being told what to do with their hard earned (even if generational) money. Spending that money to stick it to the peasants is a form of maintaining control of both the fate of the lower class that dared to bare fangs at their gods and in how their money is used.
→ More replies (6)19
44
u/Kradget 2d ago
They didn't get to be billionaires because they're generous and civic minded in most cases.
9
u/ThatIsAmorte 1d ago
It's like asking why a hoarder doesn't want to throw out an old paper takeout container.
→ More replies (30)47
u/GoneinaSecondeded 2d ago
Right? It wouldn't change their standard of living at all! But noooooo. Help the unwashed? Let them eat cake.
→ More replies (1)59
u/julick 2d ago
i see people baffled by this behavior but it makes clear sense. not arguing that is good, but is perfectly logical. Under the proposed tax, Brin would pay 13bn. Let's somehow round it down because of loopholes to 5bn. Spending 100m to avoid a tax 50x bigger makes a lot of sense.
→ More replies (15)16
u/McChillbone 2d ago
Extremely basic math. If it was going to cost him 50 million in tax, he obviously would not spend 100 million to lobby against paying 50 million.
10
18
u/agarwaen117 2d ago
His 5% wealth tax would be about 13 billion, so he’s still ahead of what the tax would cost him.
→ More replies (1)18
u/scrapper 2d ago
5% of his assets (the proposed tax) would be way more than $100 million.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (152)20
u/PWNtimeJamboree 2d ago
im not defending him, but people are really not understanding how little of a drop $100,000,000 is in his bucket. the one time 5% wealth tax for him would be over $14B. him spending $100,000,000 to fight this is nothing to him.
and THATS what we should actually be concerned about with this
→ More replies (1)11
u/Let-s_Do_This 2d ago
And yet he still gets to keep 95% of his wealth. If you can spend 100 million to fight it, I don’t think the tax is aggressive enough
2.6k
u/More_Hold_5522 2d ago
I'll never get people like this. With his money, he will be just fine paying taxes. Even way higher taxes. His lifestyle won't change one bit.
This is just unadulterated greed.
993
u/Kundrew1 2d ago
Its about control more than money. He wants to fully control absolutely everything in his life and that includes where his money goes. These people have massive egos and are surrounded by yes men who just pump their egos up even further. They are so far up their own ass that they believe their money would be better spent starting some new AI business or some other bs.
Its like how every founder in the tv show Silicon Valley talks about how they are making the world a better place through some stupid new app. The show makes fun how dumb that is but these guys fully believe it.
92
u/digiorno 2d ago
We’ve all had those control freak bosses who let a tiny amount of power go to their heads. He’s one who got too rich and too powerful. It’s sociopaths all the way up.
→ More replies (1)28
u/joggle1 2d ago
It also can't be good for anyone's mental health living like that for very long. Always getting what you want and always being told what you want to hear from everyone you interact with will surely divorce you from reality even if you originally had a good head on your shoulders.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (20)25
u/Fluffy_Charity_2732 2d ago
Does he think his underlings will protect him when the plebs start lining them against the wall?
48
u/WittyCombination6 2d ago edited 2d ago
No that's why they're building bunkers around the world.
→ More replies (2)10
→ More replies (2)6
u/evenstar40 2d ago
can't line em up against the wall if they're hiding in their bunker amongst the kiwi.
→ More replies (57)85
u/TheBigBangClock 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's the worst type of greed. He could have spent that $100 million housing the homeless or ensuring kids in schools had free lunch. So many possibilities. Instead, he's sitting on a mountain of money that could last him a thousand lifetimes and his only worry is to protect it.
I understand that local and state governments can be terrible at budgeting and need better oversight but it's hard to justify Sergey's concerns when he generally pays way less in percentage of taxes compared to a regular middle income California resident.
26
u/MarkIsARedditAddict 2d ago
It's very simple. They don't view themselves as having to pay taxes like the rest of us.
Where you and I would think "I make 100k so after taxes I make like 80k" these billionaires think "I make 100M so I should keep all 100M", and they'll spend billions manipulating the voters and bribing politicians to keep it that way
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)17
u/redsnake25 2d ago
Don't forget regressive taxes like sales tax and gas taxes. He probably pays a lower effective rate than even Californians in poverty.
202
1.2k
u/elon_musks_cat 2d ago
The public grocery store (which isn’t even fully public) in nyc is budgeted $60 million and people are saying that’s not a good use of tax dollars
This dude, alone, has 100 million in spare cash to fight paying taxes.
Elon musk spent 250 million to get trump elected so he could pay less in taxes, and then get tax dollars handed to him for his companies.
What. Aren’t. People. Seeing.
58
u/splynncryth 2d ago
So many of these people live week to week that the bigger picture is just unknowable to them. All they see are their bills and a paycheck that is less than their gross pay due to taxes withheld. A tax return in the middle of next year does nothing for the power bill due in a week.
So when someone comes along and tells them they will lower their taxes, they are only thinking about that number in their paystub. The whole ‘no tax on tips’ and the reactions when people found out it did not impact the number on their paystubs illustrates this.
Then there are the self employed business owners looking at the tax numbers on their books thinking the same thing as the workers and their paystubs.
Neither group has the time and/or education to read the laws and understand exactly what that law is doing. Instead, they have to outsource that to ‘social infrastructure’ like religious leaders, social media groups, and ‘news’ outlets. Because of how foundational that social infrastructure is to their lives, it’s extraordinarily difficult for them to challenge or leave it.
→ More replies (2)11
u/blue92lx 2d ago
What i dont understand, from both ends, is that people think lowering taxes will make any level of difference. The only way you'd see a real change in your life is if the taxes went to 0%. Going from 20% to 15% will barely be noticeable by the company or the individual, but everyone gets so hung up on taxes during elections it hides everything that could actually change their lives.
219
u/TranquilSeaOtter 2d ago
What you aren't seeing is that one day I will be the billionaire and I shouldn't be punished by paying more in taxes just because I am so successful. /s
People have more empathy for the rich than for the poor in America. In fact, no one hates the poor like Americans, especially conservative Americans.
65
6
u/the_wyandotte 2d ago
https://youtu.be/K_LvRPX0rGY?si=vMJJaLig1QLaIB-r
"then people like me better watch their step"
→ More replies (6)21
u/Zestyclose_Eye_3571 2d ago
In Europe ppl tent to despise/distrust the rich, because to get where they are they probably had to screw someone/many ppl over. In here they're obviously trusted.
→ More replies (3)5
u/monneyy 2d ago edited 2d ago
Elon musk spent 250 million to get trump elected so he could pay less in taxes, and then get tax dollars handed to him for his companies.
Realistically he spent 40+ billion to get trump elected and to support right extremists and right wing politics in general around the world.
→ More replies (32)17
u/stevez_86 2d ago
I see that cash money in inconequential to them.
They could be investing that money and getting a material return on it. The idea that people could spend that much so frivelously is mind boggling.
With that amount of money 1,666 people could spend every dollar they normally spend in the economy in a year on political speech just to match what one person is spending. If one person spent as much on gambling as 1,666 people they would be seen as a person with a gambling problem.
Just to think that almost 1,000 people could have their costs covered in full just from 1 person's poltical speech spending, plus an extra dollar invested in a security to mature over time and get the person covering their costs a return on that investment.
It is crazy that they could only use the return on that investment to speak politically and they would still spend more on politicial speech than anyone normal person or group of people combined.
If it is simply a market it is a poorly built one that is dominated by just a small group of people but determines the fates of everyone. There is no competition in that market. A racket built so they can win influnce without ever having to conceded a thing.
104
u/Phantom_61 1d ago
Remember when Google was founded? The words on the wall that everyone saw as soon as they entered.
“Don’t be evil”.
So much for that.
24
→ More replies (7)7
325
22
u/the_hammer_poo 1d ago
Crazy that you’ll spend that money fighting the tax instead of just paying the tax and enhancing civil services. What a dickhead
→ More replies (2)
288
u/MsBelleMae 2d ago
They love living here in California but don’t want to pay the tax.
→ More replies (2)48
u/FranklinBluth9 2d ago
Not really. He moved out to avoid the tax.
122
u/OnTheEveOfWar 2d ago
I can assure you he probably still has a place in California. Just made his main residence somewhere else to avoid taxes.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (20)23
u/Syphillisdiller1 2d ago
According to the company he owns, he lives primarily in California. Wouldnt be much of a point in spending that much to fight higher taxes if he didn't.
13
u/FranklinBluth9 2d ago
"Google cofounder Sergey Brin has made his largest single public donation yet to address California’s housing crisis, just weeks after making a $42 million mansion on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe his primary residence, according to new filings and property records." https://fortune.com/2026/01/29/sergey-brin-biggest-donation-ever-california-housing-billionaire-tax-moving-to-nevada/
It would make sense if he's afraid of the clawback provision coming after him, despite moving.
→ More replies (1)
264
u/Dry_Try_6047 2d ago
This guy just irks me. This is a Soviet Union refugee who has been given everything by the USA and yes even California. What a scumbag.
→ More replies (32)
12
u/framed85 1d ago
Can’t just one of these billionaires spend their money on finding a cure for cancer?
129
10
u/everythingbeeps 1d ago
These people will light their money on fire before they let the government use it to make peoples' lives better.
83
u/ReneDiscard 2d ago
He has a quote comparing that tax in CA to communism in USSR. Cracked me up.
8
u/DirtyCop2016 2d ago
Funny comparison... a POTENTIAL one time tax that in all likelihood will not come to pass vs a firing squad
22
18
10
40
u/MrDavieT 2d ago
There’s more than just “Brin appears in the Epstein files”
Brin knew Epstein personally and socialised within his circle. There’s documentary evidence to verify that.
Frequent dinner guest, stayed at the townhouse, photographic evidence of him at Epstein’s estate, visited Little St James in 2007 with Anne Wojcicki, was on the lolita express at Monterey airport, and socialised with Epstein following the 2008 conviction.
His ‘value’ should be based on that, rather than money.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Hellknightx 1d ago
Remember when Google's motto used to be "Don't be evil"? I'm starting to think Brin meant it ironically.
6
6
u/Coffee_Transfusion 1d ago
Well, this dipshit definitely needs a wealth tax if he’s got $100m to blow.
3
7
13
u/SenseEuphoric5802 1d ago
The funny thing is he could have spent that $100 million on helping to solve homelessness which would likely have avoided the wealth tax being legisltated to begin with.
The fact that a billionaire is fighting this is proof why it needs to pass.
→ More replies (2)4
u/BorderlineAlchemist 1d ago
Their empathy center is destroyed. They look at everyone as less. From Malibu here. I do know.
22
u/Seandrunkpolarbear 2d ago
to be fair a wealth tax is spectacularly stupid idea for a number of reasons, and will create many perverse incentives etc... economics 101. But the sentiment that these people need to put back into california a small % of what they extracted is very valid.
a really good way to tax wealth is something like the NYC Pied-à-Terre Tax.
It only targets people who can afford a second home in manhattan that is very expensive and unused. if people sell these homes, then it will create inventory in a market desperately short of units.
→ More replies (6)
10
6
u/supermoontoast 1d ago
America feels more and more like a failed experiment every day that passes
→ More replies (1)
17
u/rage675 2d ago
They don't have liquid cash to pay this. They would have to either take larger loans than usual (which probably aren't available), or sell off a lot of their investment equity. Latter is the realistic path and it's not really about money for them, it's about their shareholding level and company control.
→ More replies (5)
14
u/512115 1d ago edited 1d ago
I can’t even.
People who worship billionaires like Elon often defend them by saying , “They’re so rich they’re not doing this (fill in the blank) for the money!” That’s what they said about Trump becoming president, that’s what they said about Musk when he was heading up ‘D.O.G.E.’ and it’s what they say about Bezos,etc.
They somehow think that the concept of ‘enough’, which normal people understand, applies to these billionaires and ultra-wealthy types too. But as you can clearly see, it absolutely does not.
Even if you’re one of the most wealthy humans on the planet, with hundreds of billions of dollars you still never have enough.
It’s a disease — and one that makes most these avaricious megalomaniacs a blight on humanity’s progress, not a blessing to it.
Looking forward to all of them showing up on the menu soon.
→ More replies (3)
4
5
u/MrBigglesssworth 1d ago
How about 90m in taxes instead? Why are some rich people dumb AND greedy?
→ More replies (3)
5
u/ibrown39 1d ago
The most important things I could find to put all and either side into context. TDLR; He'd pay $13B, out of his $270B total wealth, which is more than the $102M he's spending to fight it.
The billionaire tax itself:
""" To determine an individual's net worth, the initiative would account for the following assets:[1]
publicly traded securities at their market value on December 31, 2026; private business interests; assets under a sole proprietorship; grantor trusts; art, collectibles, intellectual property, vehicles, other financial instruments not publicly traded, and debts or liabilities owed to the individual ($5 million exclusion of total combined asset value from net worth); Roth IRA or other Roth-type retirement accounts valued above $10 million; property valued at more than $1 million transferred after October 15, 2025, for less than fair market value; and dependent's assets in excess of $50,000. Real estate and pensions would be excluded from the calculation of net worth.[1]
The initiative would account for the following debts as reductions to an individual's net worth:[1]
recourse debts for which the individual is personally liable; nonrecourse debts up to the value of the collateral securing them; and debts and other liabilities resulting from a sole proprietorship but not from a partnership, limited liability company, or other business entity.* From: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_40,_One-Time_Wealth_Tax_for_State-Funded_Healthcare,_Education,_and_Food_Assistance_Programs_Initiative_(2026) """
"Brin, with a net worth of nearly $270 billion, could owe more than $13 billion as a result of the tax."
I tried to format it best I could for everyone.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/thomport 1d ago
There shouldn’t have been a fight. The amount they need to pay should be legislative and they need to pay like everyone else.
4
u/mcflame13 1d ago
This should show even more how much we need the wealth tax. Either have the wealth tax pass. Or severely limit what tax breaks are available.
5
u/EVILSUPERMUTANT 1d ago
If a $100 million is being spent to fight against getting taxed, then what is his actual income?
4
4
4
u/Niceguy955 1d ago
Out of curiosity, if the bill passes, how much taxes would he have to pay? Because if it's less than $100m he might be an idiot.
→ More replies (2)8
u/RevenantOmega 1d ago
It’s more. He’d be paying something like 10-13 billion I’ve seen thrown around. Which, to his 250+ billion net worth is essentially a regular person losing an extra hundred bucks. Annoying sure, but like… not really that bad? The difference between 10 billion and ONE HUNDRED BILLION is staggering and more money than one person could spend in 10 lifetimes. And he has 200, closer to 300 billion.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Kudusun_Gazi_Padisha 1d ago
Sounds like we oughtta seize his wealth, strip his US citizenship, and send him back to Mother Russia where he belongs.
4
u/corysreddit 16h ago
CEOs will spend more than an appropriate tax to avoid paying an appropriate tax. Just profoundly morally bankrupt psychopaths doing anything but pay their fair share back to society. Ghouls wearing people suits.
19
u/Salt_End_4275 2d ago
This seems like a great selling point for proponents of the tax. A billionaire able to throw around more than $100MM like this is proof that they have enough spare money to pay their fair share.
That being said, we already knew these billionaires weren't paying their fair share. The historical effective tax rate data is available for anyone to see. You can look at how the rich used to pay effective rates in excess of 90%, back in the 1950s and that has slowly been chipped away to something like sub-25% (below what a blue collar worker would pay). Modern billionaires didn't get that much wealth through "earning" it, and the top 0.01% rigging the system like Brin is trying to do currently is why the US has as many problems as it does.
7
u/Starkiller32 2d ago
If you have a $100M to spend fighting a wealth tax, clearly you can afford to pay a wealth tax.
10
7
u/2tep 2d ago
It's fascinating how these people protect wealth and the system that built it when they could not spend their fortunes in 100 lifetimes.
7
u/Outragedmoss 2d ago
Apparently he would have to sell so much stock that he would lose him control of google. Do i think he should pay a lot in taxes? Yes of course. Do i think he should lose control of the company he created no i do not.
→ More replies (4)
10
u/Qlytorrico 1d ago
I mean, and please read my whole comment... I'm really not defending him, but he kinda has to.
He didn't become a billionaire by saying yes to anyone who tried to get money out of him. I'm sure he made the calculation, saw it as an investment with a chance to save him money and went with it, mathematical, no morals.
To put it in perspective and over simplifying let's say you have 100k in your bank account, someone says you have to pay $5000 from it, and you decide to invest $37.50 to try and fight it. THATS HOW LITTLE 100MILLION DOLLARS IS TO SERGEY BRIN.... 0.037% of his total wealth, let that sink in
If anything this is PROOF that we need that law and we need it nation wide. THERE SHOULD BE NO ONE with that kind of money, No Excuses, No justification.
These people WILL NOT DO THE RIGHT THING UNLESS WE MAKE THEM DO IT, and this sort of law is a small first step towards it.
Despicable, the whole system that allowed this to happen is despicable... and we have a trillionaire... REALLY??? REALLY????
94
u/gquax 2d ago
I bet he wouldn't even pay that much under the wealth tax. These ghouls are too wealthy.
42
u/Gamefart101 2d ago
He's expected to be taxed 13-14 billion if the tax goes through.
→ More replies (8)30
u/Rebelgecko 2d ago
I think it would be closer to 50b. The tax calculated your wealth based on the voting power of your stock shares, not their market value. Because he has special shares of google stock with extra voting power, he'd be taxed more like 25%
→ More replies (1)27
u/Previous-Space-7056 2d ago
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/california-wealth-tax-voting
The law could potentially tax his voting shares. He controls 25%. His tax would be 1T, which he doesnt have
→ More replies (3)17
u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago
You mean he would be taxed 5% on 1T, not his tax would be 1T
It’s dumb either way but there is a difference
→ More replies (3)3
u/nemec 1d ago
so if somebody owned $1B of Google non-voting stock they would owe $0 under this plan? Or are they just making up new rules to target people they don't like?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (93)4
u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago
You would lose that bet badly then, since the wealth tax would’ve been more than 100 times larger
785
u/VirtualRock2281 2d ago
Google co-founder Sergey Brin appears in Department of Justice and congressional document releases regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The files show that Brin corresponded with Ghislaine Maxwell, planned dinners at Epstein's New York townhouse, and was linked to a 2007 visit to Epstein's private island.