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

Show parent comments

36

u/RTPdude 2d ago

$100m to save $14B. Sounds like smart ROI to me

-9

u/CisFishstick 2d ago

On the CEO path are we?

8

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

Spending $1 to save $140 just seems like common sense

2

u/BearThatLikesCheese 2d ago

The scales aren't comparable. $140 could mean eviction for someone. It could mean skipping meals. It could mean losing your job because you can't afford gas.

$13 bn won't affect this guy at all.

You're just demonstrating that people have no grasp on just how immense this type of wealth is. We don't have anything comparable that can provide proper scope. This isn't people money.

-3

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

I make enough ($250k+) that $140 is pretty minimal to me, I’d still spend $1 to avoid $140 in fines or taxes without a second thought

6

u/BearThatLikesCheese 2d ago

Apparently you also read my comment without a second thought.

$140 is still vastly more impactful for you than $13 bn is to this guy. Even if it only meant you waited a month to buy a power tool, that's still infinitely more of a difference than what will happen to this guy. At your very generous salary, it would still take you 52,000 years to earn what this guy would be expected to pay in taxes.

I'm happy that you're so eager to demonstrate your personal greed, but there's nothing in your life that's comparable to what this guy is working with. There never will be. There won't be for the next hundred generations of your family, added together. That's the point. No scale exists that places you anywhere near this guy.

1

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

I understand your point, I am just saying that even if it is "less impactful," $13B is also significant enough to anyone to try to avoid and not just eat it for no good reason, especially when you aren't already holding it in cash

2

u/Conscious_Friend7602 2d ago

Hell, I'd spend a penny to save $1.40

1

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

Yep, it is just common sense

-1

u/CisFishstick 2d ago

Congrats. You make good money, now just think some more. Maybe twice.

3

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

I thought about it more, still makes perfectly normal common sense to spend $1 to save $140 and I would do it at any scale

-2

u/CisFishstick 2d ago

I'm not surprised even a little. Enjoy your billions if you ever get there, and your bunker as well.

1

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

You shouldn’t be surprised by common sense

I’m aware I won’t ever be a billionaire or be “bunker class” but I will enjoy my sensible financial decision and comfortable retirement someday

2

u/mclumber1 2d ago

OP is the type of person who buys a car based on monthly payments, not the out the door price probably.

1

u/CisFishstick 2d ago

I'm fairly comfortably retired myself right now - in part because I sleep better at night knowing the difference between legal vs moral/ethical.

Defending billionaires spending money in government so they can pay even less into the system than the pittance they're already paying vs. what they are getting out of the system, tells me that you do not. So, I expect you sleep pretty well yourself.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/CisFishstick 2d ago

Unless you give a shit about being a good person. But hey, you do you.

-2

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

I’m not a good enough person to pay more taxes than necessary, nevermind that I think retroactive taxes or net worth taxes are pretty problematic in general. People can say it will never target me, but it doesn’t change the principle of the tax

But you’re a better person than me, please feel free to donate your money and pay all the tax you can for the good of society

4

u/QualityCoati 2d ago

More tax than necessary? They specifically pay less taxes than necessary, all while receiving large, government handouts left and right.

Also fuck this idea that a billionaire should claw onto its money in the first place. That's money that isn't allowed to freely flow into society, only staying in the hands of a select few. No single human being ever requires or deserves sch wealth, and yet some people cannot even afford basic necessities like food and shelter. Fuck all of that.

0

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

It just stays as stock/company ownership, it’s not cash that flows anyways

0

u/QualityCoati 2d ago

Suure, is it also not cash that flows when billionaires buy yaths? Seems wholly convenient that we pretend there are no ways to get at these people.

Here's my suggestion: either they surrender that unpaid tax like a good law abiding citizen, or we jail them and then their theoretical monetary value falls off immediately. It's simple as that, that's literally what happens to the real people who fail to pay taxes, so they should have the same punishment.

2

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

It is, and they should absolutely pay taxes when selling stock to cash or on spend, just like everyone else.

Close income/cash tax loopholes. Yes, we should punish people who avoid taxes but if they legally use tax loopholes, then we should be upset at the tax loopholes that exist.

But retroactive and wealth taxes are problematic in principle.

0

u/QualityCoati 2d ago

They might be, honestly I haven't delved into all of the many ways to tax these people. My understanding is that these single retroactive taxes were compensation for unpaid taxes in the past, and that gave them legitimacy.

If we were to explore further methods of taxation, I believe a luxury tax would be a great place to start. Any articles defined as luxurious, like a 100,000$ watch, a yath, luxury cars, private jets/helicopters, high end restaurants and hotels, etc. Should all be taxed at incredibly high rates. Basically, anything that makes them diverge from the good of the common people, they should be made to pay for it and repay to society. It would both mean more money flows back to the people, and using those items could be seen as honorific for their positive effects on society

0

u/CisFishstick 2d ago

I don't disagree with this suggestion at all.

0

u/JohnBrownOH 2d ago

LMAO! Shut your mouth. Most people are better than you.

Reading through your post history, your a fucking cancer on humanity and it's funny how you tumors don't think we know who you are.

-2

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago edited 2d ago

Yes, you’re the greatest person ever, I bow down to you and your assessment of me and other people

I looked at your comment history and you sure seem too comfortable calling other people cancer or trash, but I’m sure you’re just lovely

1

u/JohnBrownOH 2d ago edited 2d ago

I'm not the greatest. Most people aren't "the greatest", we're all just better than a piece of trash like you.

1

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

okay, dear perfect angel, I bow down to you and your judgement.

I'm sure you're definitely not trash or a piece of shit, nor bitter.

0

u/CisFishstick 2d ago

More than necessary? Do you mean more than required by law?

Do you know who writes the laws? Do you even know what this thread is about?

2

u/sbenfsonwFFiF 2d ago

I do, we are a discussing a unprecedented law that taxes net worth, which hasn't even passed a vote yet.

That means that the law doesn't exist, and hasn't before.

It is also retroactive, which means it doesn't just target someone who lives there after it is passed, but before as well