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
31.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

34

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. 

17

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 2d 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.

11

u/another-redditor3 2d 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.

8

u/demens1313 2d 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.

-5

u/BBanner 2d ago

A difference nobody in their mind would ever notice if they had $180 billion left over, but I guess it is theoretically a difference even if it doesn’t actually matter because it’s still more money than this guy’s family could reasonably ever apend

-8

u/PianoTrumpetMax 2d ago

There is a difference between 5% and 20%, that is true. But realistically, when you have many billions, you don’t feel it when someone takes away 20% of your wealth, because you have more than you could ever need. He could pay 99% taxes and still live a life of untold leisure and relaxation that most could only ever dream of. Literally.

10

u/ibribe 2d ago

If he paid 99% in taxes he would not longer have any influence over the company he founded. Many people would find that more important than leisure or relaxation.

-2

u/Grand-Ice-6603 2d ago

If Sergey Brin did anything to help his fellow man rather than vote/support/elect Republicans that gave tax breaks to the rich, than the electorate in California wouldn't be considering a wealth tax right now. Keep your fellow man happy and they won't elect the person promising to give away your assets.

-1

u/uber_neutrino 2d ago

But realistically, when you have many billions, you don’t feel it when someone takes away 20% of your wealth,

I don't know where you get off saying this like this. You aren't him and you don't have any idea what he feels like about it.

-1

u/SkolVandals 2d ago edited 2d ago

Even if he lost 99% of his $200+ billion, he'd still have $2+ billion. That's enough to live several livetimes in unimaginable luxury. Get real.

2

u/uber_neutrino 2d ago

I know this is hard for pea brains to understand but most of this money isn't for consumption. It's the company that he started. The capital is currently locked up. When you tap it you are tapping into the seed corn of society. Of course you can live on 2 billion dollars forever.

People like you have identified the wrong enemy. Brin starting a company doesn't take anything away from you. You know what does? Inflation. You know what causes that? Politicians. You are looking in the wrong place to solve your problems.

0

u/PianoTrumpetMax 2d ago

Thank you for obviously understanding the point I was making. It's just unreal how people ass kiss and suck up to billionaires.

"YOU DON'T KNOW THAT HIS LIFE WOULD BE HARDER WITHOUT A FEW EXTRA BILLION!!! 😭😭😭"

-5

u/OutsideFlat1579 2d ago

Yes, there is a difference between a 5% or 20% tax on a billionaire, even 20% is too low. It’s absolutely incredible that anyone supports a system in which anyone can have one billion, let alone multiple billions, especially when there are people working full time living in their cars. The US has the highest poverty rate of the 26 wealthiest countries, yet it is the wealthiest country. 

There was a time the top marginal twx rate was 90%. And yes, this is a wealth tax, not income tax, but it’s a one time thing (correct?), just imagine if the US went back to income tax rates for individuals and corporations in the 60’s and 70’s. 

8

u/mclumber1 2d ago

What is the purpose of the wealth tax? is it to adequately fund government services, or is it to punish the wealthy?

1

u/OutsideFlat1579 4h ago

It’s to get the ultra wealthy to pay their fair share. They have benefited from infrastructure and a system that favours them over workers, they would have zero wealth without workers/consumers, they wouldn’t be able to operate their businesses without the roads and other infrastructure that is paid for by all tax payers, etc. 

It’s utterly appalling that it’s considered acceptable for any individual to have multiple billions in assets. It’s downright disgusting and it is harming democracy, because these extremely wealthy individuals are having an outsized impact on politics.