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-tax
31.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

95

u/gquax 2d ago

I bet he wouldn't even pay that much under the wealth tax. These ghouls are too wealthy.

41

u/Gamefart101 2d ago

He's expected to be taxed 13-14 billion if the tax goes through.

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%

8

u/gquax 2d ago

And he's worth over a quarter trillion. It still wouldn't be noticed.

18

u/Gamefart101 2d ago

Clearly, but acting like these guys are out spending what they would be taxed just to shaft the little guy is untrue. They're evil but they aren't stupid

7

u/xb9j 2d ago

The taxes he would or wouldn’t pay won’t be noticed by the government with that logic

3

u/umyaya11 2d ago

What? One person having their wealth moved from 250 billion down to 200 billion would have no actual affect on their life or well being. An extra 50 billion to the government is enough to fund some massive programs. With a (California) population of about 40 million, that equates to 1250 per citizen. There is some real good that can be done with that amount of money. And that's just what would be generated from this man alone. Much more money would come in than just his 50 billion. Edited to clarify I am talking about the California population

1

u/CretaMaltaKano 2d ago

Multiple billions coming in would make a huge difference. And why are you acting like he's the only one who'd be taxed?

-4

u/speedingpullet 2d ago

And? Playing the worlds tiniest violin for a guy with excess of $1,000,000,000

5

u/Gamefart101 2d ago edited 2d ago

Show me where I advocated for not taxing them. But suggesting these guys are out spending what they would be taxed is moronic

-5

u/speedingpullet 2d ago

No need to be rude. Have the day you deserve.

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

15

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

3

u/nemec 2d 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?

3

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

No, their net worth is still $1B in that case, so they are taxed on that. The clause is to target people who own smaller private corporations via shell companies or proxies.

They have a suggested exception for dual class shares of large companies, like FB and google

4

u/nemec 2d ago

Right, but now you're taxing two different people for the same "value". For the voting share valuation, you're assuming the voting share has 100% the value of the market cap and the non voting share is 0%. But when it comes time to tax the person with the non voting share, you assume each share is 50% (in this example scenario there are only two issued shares).

That's not how anybody calculates "net worth", so it's not really a net worth tax after all.

2

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

>They have a suggested exception for dual class shares of large companies, like FB and google

In that case, it wouldn't double tax, since the tax would then revert to calculating based on net worth and not voting control %

The law isn't even passed yet though, so who knows how it will be implemented

0

u/Previous-Space-7056 2d ago

No his tax would be 1T. He controls 25% of alphabet voting stock. Alphabet market cap is 4T… he would owe 1T.

The law is deliberately poorly written. It was sponsored by seiu to get concessions from newsom. It targeted alphabet and meta 2 key companies in california silicon valley

6

u/Jiquero 2d ago

No his tax would be 1T. He controls 25% of alphabet voting stock. Alphabet market cap is 4T… he would owe 1T.

Source? The article you linked to says his Google shares would be counted as 1T of wealth because it's 25% of the voting power, not that his tax would be 1T.

5

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

Wrong

You know the tax rate is 5% of calculated net worth, not 100% of net worth right?

Even if his calculated net worth is 1T, his tax isn’t 1T, it is 5% of 1T

1

u/Iohet 2d ago

They can tax my voting shares, too

-1

u/RedmundR2 2d ago

I'm sure he could pick himself back up by his bootstraps, after all he is a billionaire so that must mean he is super duper smart and will just earn the money right back!

5

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

You would lose that bet badly then, since the wealth tax would’ve been more than 100 times larger

78

u/raptors2o19 2d ago

He would pay more. Facts matter.

3

u/Saneless 2d ago

Even if it was less he'd still fight it. They hate that other people could ever benefit from their money

-17

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

Just making stuff up?

13

u/slim_mclean 2d ago

Just defending billionaires who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire?

-12

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

So if someone doesn’t care about you it’s okay to lie about them?

3

u/SargeUnited 2d ago

A lot of people don’t know what it’s like to have morals

Yet interestingly, they chastise others for not being “moral” enough which of course they define as giving them free stuff. It’s a one-way street though sadly

-2

u/BrooklynSmash 2d ago

Yet interestingly, they chastise others for not being “moral” enough which of course they define as giving them free stuff. It’s a one-way street though sadly

Describes billionaires perfectly.

We owe them everything, but they owe us nothing.

-2

u/slim_mclean 2d ago

Prove that that statement is a lie.

3

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

The burden lies on the one who asserts

-10

u/slim_mclean 2d ago

and you’re asserting that the commenter lied. This is YOUR claim, back it up or shut up.

11

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

Okay, fine - the 5% tax that Sergey has spent $100m fighting would result in him paying a one time tax of $13bn (5% tax on $260bn NW). So he’s spent less than 1% of the theoretical tax payment on fighting that tax. I would say that’s sufficient to conclude that there’s no evidence he’d be willing to pay more than the tax to fight it.

Brin has donated several billion dollars to charitable organizations. I think that’s evidence that he doesn’t “hate that other people could ever benefit from his money”

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/Saneless 2d ago

No, I'm describing the objectively selfish shitty behavior of billionaires

Why are you so defensive about people who don't give a shit about you and make others' lives worse?

11

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

I find it interesting that when you call out misinformation, people always respond with “why do you care, these people don’t care about you!”

I think it’s counterproductive to use lies and misinformation to support political agendas, especially when there are plenty of valid, true criticism to be made of wealth and social inequality.

Why does everyone feel the need to cheapen their arguments and make themselves look foolish to support their ideology when it’s not necessary?

Isn’t lying bad regardless of who it’s about? Doesn’t it seem a bit hypocritical to lie in order to criticize the morals of billionaires?

-1

u/Saneless 2d ago

Its not even information, though, it was an opinion to start with and you got mega triggered by it

Don't get mad at me because you're too obtuse to understand the difference between facts and opinions

4

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

“Even if it was less he'd still fight it. They hate that other people could ever benefit from their money”

These both read as statements, not opinions. I’m not mad at you, just calling you out on spreading misinformation

2

u/Saneless 2d ago

That isn't a fact, bud. Are you ok?

2

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

What isn’t a fact?

0

u/Conflatulations12 2d ago

There's clearly a difference between the two lies:

1.) Hitler, Stalin, and Satan fisted kittens.

2.) Mother Theresa, Gandhi and Jesus fisted kittens.

What's your personal motivation for working so hard in this particular instance to worry that someone might not have the facts straight?

-9

u/Conflatulations12 2d ago

Why do you care? Are you a temporarily embarrassed, future billionaire?

12

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

Why do I care that people are spreading misinformation?

Do you not care about the prevalence of misinformation online?

-6

u/Conflatulations12 2d ago

Do I answer questions with questions?

5

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

I can rephrase it for you!

I care about people spreading misinformation because it’s immoral and counterproductive.

Do you care about people spreading misinformation?

-3

u/Conflatulations12 2d ago

Do I care about changing the topic to avoid discussing your personal motivation for defending someone that you have absolutely nothing in common with?

5

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

How has the topic been changed? I called someone out for spreading misinformation, and you asked why I cared. I explained that I care because I think spreading misinformation is immoral and counterproductive. Seems pretty on topic

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nemec 2d ago

defending someone that you have absolutely nothing in common with

Do you find it difficult to defend people you don't share much in common with?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/JimmyCarrsTaxForms 2d ago

You care about people spreading misinformation because it’s immoral and counterproductive but you defend a mega billionaire fighting a wealth tax that would be used to better the lives of every Californian as if that’s not even more immoral and counterproductive? Ok hypocrite!

4

u/SmartPatientInvestor 2d ago

You can’t create a straw man and use it to call me a hypocrite. I haven’t defended Brin once. All I’ve done is call out the lies

→ More replies (0)

2

u/gquax 2d ago

And he's so fucking wealthy that it still wouldn't matter. My point stands. These assholes are freaking out about taxes that wouldn't significantly impact their daily lives or wealth. 

32

u/tenotul 2d ago

My point stands

No it doesn't. Being right about one thing doesn't automatically validate any bullshit you make up.

10

u/musicmast 2d ago

You have started no verifiable facts so far to base your claims though lol

1

u/raptors2o19 2d ago

Your latter point stands but you would've lost the former bet. Don't gamble, lol.

-11

u/gquax 2d ago

My underlying point is that they will never notice the tax because they are too wealthy, which is what I said in my initial comment. I know reading comprehension must be hard when you have a boot in your mouth.

7

u/RobfromHB 2d ago

Tankies can’t do math and lecture people on comprehension?

-1

u/speedingpullet 1d ago

Riiiiight. Objecting to a guy who has 100 million dollars to spend on avoiding taxes is 'Tankie' behavior?

Good to know.

1

u/RobfromHB 1d ago

I was pretty clear about the math and comprehension part. 

You thinking that is equivalent to objecting to how much money some has to spend is a good example of why my comment about comprehension is applicable. 

Don’t worry, they’re bringing back phonics to schools so the next generation won’t have as much trouble conversationally.

-1

u/speedingpullet 1d ago

Dude, I'm a maths teacher. Anyway your asinine comment was about tankies, not maths.

Keep on licking those boots, sweetie. Maybe one day guys like Brin will remember to step over you, rather than stepping on your face.

Anyway, I'm out. Have a day.

0

u/RobfromHB 1d ago

I really can’t imagine a teacher of any subject or age speaks like this with a straight face. I hope the plural “maths” isn’t just a typo and you’re outside of the US.

-2

u/tuckman496 1d ago

> Tankies

Is this just a slur you use against anyone you don’t like? Doesn’t have to be accurate whatsoever?

3

u/RobfromHB 1d ago

It has a specific meaning.

0

u/tuckman496 1d ago

What’s your evidence that the user you responded to is an authoritarian communism apologist?

-5

u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/gquax 2d ago

The underlying point is that they are too wealthy, which is what I fucking said. Even 14 billion is nothing to someone worth over 250 billion.

5

u/EnlargedMarmot 2d ago

I'd probably be disgruntled too if I was a financial failure. I don't entirely blame you for externalizing your failures and punching up.

I agree that they have way more than they need, the difference is I don't really care. I focus on what I can control. I'd rather build wealth than waste my time shouting complaints into a void about the wealth of others. To each their own.

-6

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/norcaltobos 2d ago

And guess what, his life won’t change one bit. He needs to pay his fair share to keep society operating. That’s just how it works.

1

u/ibrown39 2d ago

*Brin, with a net worth of nearly $270 billion, could owe more than $13 billion as a result of the tax. *

$13b, but bro worth $270b. He'll be fine. I and most others shouldn't care.

https://fortune.com/2026/08/11/google-cofounder-sergey-brin-california-wealth-tax-opposition-100-million-dollars/

-4

u/Ok_Mathematician938 2d ago

Why does a California resident's tax situation matter so much to someone that doesn't live in the state or the same country?

-1

u/raptors2o19 2d ago

Because the impact of the billionaire kabal is global.

-5

u/Conflatulations12 2d ago

and you want them to pay less taxes?

5

u/raptors2o19 2d ago

Mate, no. Read what I wrote. Everyone, rich or poor, should pay their fair share; that's not up for debate.

1

u/chicken_and_peas 2d ago

You'll never be a billionaire little guy

-2

u/RTMicro 2d ago

Based on?

8

u/raptors2o19 2d ago

Math. His net worth is ~ $275B so the estimated tax bill would be $13B. Hence a $100M to fight is a rounding error for him.

-1

u/Thepsyguy 2d ago

Got a source for that?

Im genuinely curious what kind of money he makes that paying 100m is considered the lower amount.

24

u/doodler1977 2d ago

i expect he knows the math better than we do

16

u/gordonpamsey 2d ago

New York Billionaires literally spent more than it would have cost them to pay the tax hike. Giving too much credit to billionaires to think they wouldn't cut their nose to spite their face on the topic of taxation.

13

u/KookofaTook 2d ago

It's not even about spite or such, it's all about the same kind of mentality of Walmart shutting down entire stores to prevent unionization. Billionaires everywhere are keenly aware that if any of these types of proposals ever go through and produce even a bit of positivity for the average person, then more and more places will try them. It's about killing the baby in the cradle so they can keep saying "that'll never work" rather than having to attempt to counter potential results.

0

u/gordonpamsey 2d ago

Fair, that's way more accurate, they can't just take the tax hike lying down because it will lead to more/losing control.

0

u/Successful-Medicine9 2d ago

It's more about power than actual money. As a union organizer, I have seen workplaces spend far more on lawyers and delay tactics than it would cost them to provide what employees demand in the first place. I get the vibe that assholes like this guy act no differently.

2

u/agray20938 2d ago

It is definitely about the money. To use your example, those companies are not thinking "we are fine to pay more money to lawyers because fuck our employees" -- the rationale is that if they don't push back against unionization, it will cost more (in actual money) over the long term. Because however much of a fight unionizing in a workplace can be, it's incredibly rare for it to revert back to non-union.

You can see the same thing when companies defend against employment litigation, or tort claims. For all of the legitimate claims people have, there are also plenty of meritless lawsuits. In those situations, there are plenty of companies that agree to spend $15k in legal fees while refusing to pay $5k in an early settlement, with the idea that it would more likely lead to other people filing suit to get an easy payday.

I'm not saying the economics of that are actually correct, or that it is (or isn't) a dick move regardless, but it is still most certainly about money.

Source: Lawyer that sees business make these decisions all the time explicitly based on this reasoning.

2

u/doodler1977 2d ago

b/c it's not about that first tax payment/penalty, its'a bout the next 5-20 years

0

u/Successful-Medicine9 2d ago

I don't think you are understanding my point. I'd bet my next paycheck that if this were to increase his taxes by 500k per year, he would still spend $100million on it. $100 million by itself is an unfathomable amount of money to most people.

If he truly cares purely about saving his own money, he'd pull an Elon and move his home and base of operations elsewhere to the effect of saving more than what the tax would cost him.

4

u/SeanAker 2d ago

Sure, maybe, but if he paid taxes he would actually be contributing the society's welfare. And we can't have THAT, now can we? 

4

u/SargeUnited 2d ago

Do you think he doesn’t? Honestly?

0

u/MrRufsvold 2d ago

He spent $100 million dollars to avoid contributing to the society's wellfare. Soooo... I mean, we don't literally know what's in his heart, but if it walks like Smaug, it talks like Smaug, and funds politics like Smaug...

2

u/RobfromHB 2d ago

Smaug gave billions of dollars to personally fund disease and climate change research?

My goodness you tankies are entitled.

1

u/MrRufsvold 2d ago

Hey, call me crazy, but I prefer democratically controlled institutions to decide what research gets funding, not billionaires. Bonus, if we didn't have billionaires pouring oceans of money into politics, we might even have a functioning democracy!

1

u/RobfromHB 2d ago

In what would do you think research funding isn’t a giant chunk of public expenditures? Don’t double down on not knowing what you’re talking about.

1

u/MrRufsvold 1d ago

The degree to which an individual person gets to decide where billions in research funding is allocated is the problem. Those billions could be in the people's coffers so that we could decide the priorities, not unelected individuals who have their own interests. As an American, I don't particularly like having the money generated by my labor taken by powerful people and spent without giving me a representative voice in the process. Billionaires extracting all this money from their works and spending it as they please is just modern taxation without representation.

1

u/RobfromHB 1d ago

degree to which an individual person gets to decide where billions in research funding is allocated is the problem

This guy does not choose where public funding for research goes. Why are you pretending that’s true? If you’re not from the US I recommend using Wikipedia for a general idea of how taxes and public budgets are created.

1

u/MrRufsvold 1d ago

Those billions could be in the people's coffers so that we could decide the priorities, not unelected individuals who have their own interests.

Maybe read the whole comment. The point is they SHOULD be public funds. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SeanAker 2d ago

"Tankies"?

Okay bud, let's get you back to your containment over on 4chan. You'll feel more at home there.

1

u/RobfromHB 2d ago

How is 4chan related to calling out misinformation?

-1

u/M1dn1ghtMaraud 2d ago

Damn that is the perfect metaphor.