r/technology • u/marketrent • Aug 16 '26
Society Bernie Sanders calls out Sergey Brin for spending over $100 million to defeat California’s billionaire tax — ‘If California passes its one-time 5% wealth tax, Brin would owe $14 billion and still be worth $270 billion’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/bernie-sanders-calls-sergey-brin-120113695.html2.5k
u/Donnicton Aug 16 '26
But you don't understand, if he has to pay taxes then that means he has to exist as part of society, rather than above it!
440
u/HumongousBelly Aug 16 '26
But if he has to pay taxes, how will he ever rebuild Trump/epstein island?
164
Aug 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
110
u/0202_tihssitidder Aug 16 '26
Yup. You can spend all week looking at private islands around the planet that are owned by billionaires and either built out or being built out. Pretty much lawless.
→ More replies (7)49
u/Podo13 Aug 16 '26
If I had that kind of wealth, I'd absolutely build an island. But I'd build it to get away from everybody. I'd laugh at anybody who'd assume anybody else but my family were there.
91
→ More replies (4)9
u/sobberano Aug 16 '26
With that username
→ More replies (1)10
u/creampop_ Aug 16 '26
me running away from the angry mob as my banana hammock sways majestically:
I SAID I'M A SPEEDOPHILE
2
u/penispumprepairshop1 Aug 17 '26
You can show up in my shop without prejudice cream pop!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)7
106
u/Pndrizzy Aug 16 '26
It’s so weird because I’ve worked at Google for 10 years and been in the same room as him countless times, and the overwhelming opinion on him within the company is that he’s a pretty regular and down to earth dude. He seems really interested in technology, is a workaholic and traveled around campus on an elliptical bike. He would tell the most dry jokes ever that were actually kind of funny. And then after Jan 6, it seems like all the billionaires said “hmm… we got away with this… what else?”
50
u/n0neofyourbeeswax Aug 16 '26
I seen some deeper commentary on this a few days ago - the bill would acrew their majority control at Alphabet. I forget the details, but something related to disrupting the class of shares they're using to have majority control without majority ownership.
12
u/ChrisFromIT Aug 16 '26
Yeah there is a clause in the bill that has it so that the determination of wealth for stock ownership is based on how much shares you have or how much voting rights you have, which ever is higher. And if it is based on voting rights, the worth of those voting rights is how much share of the total voting rights you have and the market cap of the company.
So for example, if I have say 5 shares, each worth $1, but each share gives me 10 votes and thus I have 50 votes and that is 50% of all the votes. And the company total market cap is $100. I owe not 5% of $5($0.25), but 5% of $50($2.50).
And the hard part is that Brin's class of stock is not sellable or transferable iirc. So he would be on the hook for maybe $50 billion or more.
→ More replies (7)43
u/another-redditor3 Aug 16 '26
That’s the same one I saw too. And the price they are charging on the voting shares is in direct relation to ownership control. since he has something like 60% voting shares, the tax rate proposed would be 60x market value. Anyone with half a brain would be against that.
24
u/taylormade1296 Aug 16 '26
Why did I have to uncover this post from reddit to read it.. It's like reddit constantly wants to hide the truth around this issue.
→ More replies (15)12
u/Far-Web-165 Aug 17 '26
Reddit's headlines only + karma system naturally devolves to mob opinion/populism and leaves little room for nuance.
→ More replies (14)7
u/suckthesenuts_6969 Aug 16 '26
Anyone with half a brain would be against allowing any one person from accruing so much in the first place so...nobody fucking cares. These taxes should directly impact the level of power/wealth they have. Stolen labor value/stolen value is abhorrent people die for this greed.
→ More replies (24)6
→ More replies (2)7
8
u/kuedhel Aug 17 '26
I would speculate that Sergei does not appreciate tax on unrealized wealth. It is hard to tell that he has 270B just by looking at number of GOOGL shares he has and multiplying on the current stock price. What if he pays the tax while Google is riding AI wave and tomorrow GOOGL drops to $10 a share?
Would goverment return his money?
Why founders of publicly traded companies have to pay tax, but someone with more obscure private partnership does not?→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (23)10
u/cultish_alibi Aug 16 '26
Billionaires are mentally ill, the amount of money and therefore power they have turns their brains into boiled spam and their desire to keep that money overrides any humanity they have. I'm sure they are nice enough, as long as you don't pose any threat to their precious wealth, but if you ask them to pay 0.00001% extra taxes they will absolutely do whatever they can to stop you.
2
u/GOA_AMD65 Aug 16 '26
He would move and so would a whole lot of other people. He was never going to pay this tax.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/Starwolf00 Aug 17 '26
Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't actually have 270 billion dollars, let alone 14. He co-founded and owns a portion of Google valued at "x" amount. Meaning he will likely be forced to sell a portion of his ownership (separate taxable event) to pay said wealth tax.
This again is assuming that he has residency in California and would be affected by the tax in the first place.
It would also assume that he's bankrolling the 100 million and not just the figurehead representing a bunch of other people who don't want to pay additional taxes.
Very interesting indeed.
2
u/C0meAtM3Br0 Aug 17 '26
He would have to liquidate stock to pay taxes. Thats what everyone is trying to avoid. But also he would have to be evaluated based on his perceived value via his equity. It’s complicated. IT it the right thing to do, but difficult to pass universally
→ More replies (67)2
186
u/marketrent Aug 16 '26 edited Aug 16 '26
Part of article by Namrata Sen, quoting Sanders and Brin:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) criticized Alphabet's Google co-founder Sergey Brin for his efforts to oppose California's proposed billionaire tax, highlighting the wealth he amassed since President Donald Trump's election.
On Tuesday, Sanders took to X and pointed out that Brin has made $140 billion since Trump was elected.
Sergey Brin has made $140 billion since Trump was elected.
If California passes its one-time 5% wealth tax, he would owe $14 billion and still be worth $270 billion.
So what is he doing? Spending $100 million to defeat the proposal.
FIGHT OLIGARCHY. TAX BILLIONAIRE WEALTH.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 11, 2026
Brin has been actively opposing the tax, donating an additional $20 million to Building a Better California, a political advocacy group opposing California's billionaire tax and backing pro-business policies. His total contributions to the group have now reached $102 million.
Sergey Brin criticized California's billionaire tax proposal, comparing it to the socialism he experienced growing up in the Soviet Union. He told the New York Times that he fled the USSR with his family in 1979 and warned that such policies could create a similarly oppressive society in California.
74
u/flaagan Aug 16 '26
So he fled a Soviet country and wasn't aware of the history of the country he fled to that used to and will someday again expect its richest members to properly contribute to society for all the wealth they've leeched off of it? Got it.
29
u/MultiGeometry Aug 16 '26
It’s probably a fearmongering talking point his PR company tells him to sprinkle into speeches. If he’s fled it once he must understand the importance of fleeing again.
He’s not even willing to move to a different state, nevermind a different country.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Blackout38 Aug 16 '26
What history was that?
→ More replies (5)14
u/muffinhead2580 Aug 16 '26
Do you not know the history of the US? We didn't always allow the wealthy to just not pay taxes.
→ More replies (11)12
u/TrioOfTerrors Aug 16 '26
But we've never taxed wealth like the California proposal.
→ More replies (17)13
u/bmwparking Aug 16 '26
the socialism he experienced growing up in the Soviet Union
Bro was literally six years old when they fled the USSR. What socialism did he experience? Free daycare?
3
u/ProofJournalist Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
I grew up entirely in the United States. My parents are from the Soviet Union. That has been more than enough for me to get a vivid sense of what it was like there. 6 years is more than enough lived experience to get context, especially when you have something to compare.
His argument is as bullshit as my dad, who basically didn't vote for decades because it was pointless in the Soviet Union.
→ More replies (10)11
u/suzisatsuma Aug 16 '26
I have family that fled both nazi Germany and USSR, you would have noticed the lines, lack of diverse food, and fear of the state easily by 6. Your family tell you all manner of stories growing up as well
A lot of things to complain about here, but this one is very meh
→ More replies (1)10
u/Wide-Annual-4858 Aug 16 '26
I grew up in the socialist Hungary. No you don't notice those things you mention. At 6 you don't analyze the society, you play with other kids. You don't notice lack of diverse foods, because you eat what your parents cook. And there was no fear of the state in kids at all.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Speedstick2 Aug 17 '26
But if you were six and came to the US you would ask why the food was more diverse here, why the lines were shorter to non-existent, why their parents seem more outspoken.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)7
111
u/Urborg_Stalker Aug 16 '26
I want to know how spending money automatically makes this happen.
Politicians caught being bribed should be banned from politics for life (and the definition of bribery needs to be seriously expanded to all the other bullshit that currently goes on).
58
u/FlirtyFluffyFox Aug 16 '26
Because most voters are so affected by paid advertising that it works.
→ More replies (2)24
u/daft_trump Aug 16 '26
I actually think this is misleading and wrong. It's not true that "most" people are affected. In a vote that is 55/45, only 5% of people need to have their minds changed.
But I'll take it one step further, it's not even people changing their minds. It's people that have never thought about the issue before. Ads are the first time theyve ever even thought about the issue. And then they go into the vote with only one biased point of view.
13
u/ChadsWearSocks Aug 16 '26
Your second point kind of counteracts the first - a vote doesn’t start out at 55/45, it starts out with people not knowing about the issue. They see one piece of advertising or a news article (basically the same thing) and now they have an opinion and take the side of whatever they saw. So yes, it absolutely is “most” people who are affected.
→ More replies (2)2
u/oldmaninparadise Aug 16 '26
To continue on this line of thought, when trump and republicans say they have a MANDATE from the people, he won the popular by 1.5%. In a zero sum 2 party system, that means if 0.8% of the people changed their minds, he would have lost the popular!
0.8% is not a mandate.
Bow I know the electoral college votes in the president, not the popular, but you get mt gist.
To flip the 5 swing states that determine the outcome, it just needs to flip about 1.5% (ranged from 1% to 4%).
→ More replies (6)5
u/MarzipanTop4944 Aug 16 '26
> spending money automatically makes this happen
I doesn't. They can spend in negative ads against the policy and the politicians supporting it and they can spend in lobby by giving contributions to politician's political campaigns that are against it, but at the end of the day, politicians have to vote for this and the people elect the politicians.
The politicians and the rich use the money to buy ads, but it's the age of information and everybody has a phone with internet to just check what a politician has done for you or against you before voting in 30 seconds.
→ More replies (3)
81
u/cadrass Aug 16 '26
Why is this post on this sub?
12
u/Noactuallyyourwrong Aug 17 '26
This sub has literally nothing to do with technology anymore. It’s just turned into yet another politics circle jerk. If anything it’s anti tech
63
→ More replies (1)7
148
u/Head_Vanilla_9566 Aug 16 '26
Wtf does this have to do with technology?
59
Aug 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
23
u/_senpo_ Aug 16 '26
expectation:
advances in computing. New gadgets shown at an event. Better way to produce power.
reality:
us politics33
9
u/CoconutMochi Aug 16 '26
he's one of google's co-founders, that's the only connection I can make here
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (7)7
u/Key-Monk6159 Aug 16 '26
Take your medicine like a good boy while ignoring Rule 1.
7
u/ClevelandSteamers757 Aug 16 '26
Meanwhile mods in city, state, and popular subs just ban you for things that don’t break the rules at all. It’s pathetic really
→ More replies (1)
217
u/Oceanbreeze871 Aug 16 '26
A one time billionaire tax is better than no tax ever.
7
56
u/WinonasChainsaw Aug 16 '26
Or we could just do the right thing and repeal prop 13??
9
u/Oceanbreeze871 Aug 16 '26
What’s that?
79
u/WinonasChainsaw Aug 16 '26
It froze property taxes back in the late 70s and messed up local taxes for Californian cities like Oakland
Also is reason why NIMBYism took over and led to the housing shortage bc there’s no financial punishment (tax) to artificially restricting the number of housing units in a city so property owners could induce scarcity to raise theirs
The uber rich took advantage of this with real estate and land speculation
→ More replies (19)46
u/pita4912 Aug 16 '26
It’s a prop that locks in property taxes at the time of sale. So you have people with $10mil houses they paid $120k for in the 70s paying taxes as if the property is only worth $150,000. It’s rent control for homeowners in CA. Sounds good, disastrously bad in practice.
8
→ More replies (8)5
u/Hautamaki Aug 16 '26
Tbh that doesn't even sound good at all, what a horrible idea lol
10
u/jrzalman Aug 16 '26
Say you buy a house at 500k. Ok, you can swing the 7k in property taxes. Three years later your house if valued at 1M. So while your mortgage payment is the same, your salary hasn't kept up with inflation and now your property tax bill is 14k. Time keeps progressing, property values keep spiking.
Eventually, without Prop 13, many people can't afford to live in the houses they own - especially if they dare to retire - because property tax runs away with property values. This was judged a bad outcome by voters and so we have Prop 13 which caps property tax increases at 1-2% per year. It has unintended consequences to be sure but it does have its reasons for existing.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (1)2
u/themiDdlest Aug 16 '26
The last law California republicans were able to pass under Reagan and Nixon. It effectively froze California and was a giant hand out to wealthy home owners off the backs of renters and poor people
→ More replies (8)6
u/whytakemyusername Aug 16 '26
Tax the money as it comes in. prop 13 hurts ordinary people. Ordinary people have their money taxed as it comes in.
6
u/wip30ut Aug 16 '26
but why not tax hundred millionaires too? The cutoff is arbitrary. And why should all these new revenues be spent on healthcare subsidies? Why not a tax rebate for ALL California residents instead?
→ More replies (2)17
u/No-Marketing-5555 Aug 16 '26
The obvious issue is that it won't be one time only. The end result is that billionaires will leave, they will take many high paid jobs with them and move company HQs etc
→ More replies (44)→ More replies (91)26
u/e1vi5 Aug 16 '26
Sergey Brin has already paid billions in taxes over the years through income taxes, capital gains when he sells stock, and corporate taxes from Google/Alphabet. Same for other billionaires.
This isn’t “no tax ever.” California already takes in more tax money than most small countries. The problem is how the state spends it, not a lack of taxes on rich people.
→ More replies (46)27
u/Relevant-Ad2254 Aug 16 '26
The problem isn’t even how the state spends it. It’s about how the tax is implemented.
Unrealized wealth taxes are not without unintended consequences.
I don’t think there would be this much backlash if California simply increased capital gains taxes.
44
Aug 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
22
9
u/bfume Aug 17 '26
Wild how many people on reddit have zero idea how
economics and taxesanything works→ More replies (3)9
u/Technical_Bath1062 Aug 16 '26
Yes and apparently Bernie Sanders has no idea as well but how many million is he now worth
→ More replies (2)3
u/sim21521 Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26
Bernie Sanders is a man that was asked to leave a hippie commune, because the people thought he wasn't pulling his weight. He worked in middling jobs while running for office repeatedly. And all you need to know is how he went from talking about how bad "millionaires and billionaires" were, until he became a millionaire and stopped including them. He doesn't really have a concept of how the economy works like most people that support socialism.
11
u/Adventurous_Ear_3877 Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26
And California has ~110 billion of govt debt + ~500 billion usd long term liabilities like pensions and the state deficit was ~18 billion dollars in 2025
Wealth tax is not even a drop in the bucket of California’s financial issues
You could tax every billionaire out of existence and fiscal situation won’t improve unless you do some sort of broad based taxation and spending rationalisation
7
u/sim21521 Aug 17 '26
There's no real way to tax your way out of the problem, it's solely a spending problem.
14
u/NW_Thru_Hiker_2027 Aug 16 '26
"One time"
"Temporary"
All bull shit
→ More replies (1)4
u/TastyJournalist8451 Aug 17 '26
also no billionaires just sit on 270billion of liquidity ready to be taxed 14 billion from. It's just largely his google stock value in 2026. So does california force him to sell all of his stock and assets so that he is forced to report 270 billion income/cash on hand and they can get their grubby hands on it lol?
36
u/WiggerJim69 Aug 16 '26
1, This has nothing to do with technology
2, Sanders represents Vermont, not california
→ More replies (5)
10
31
u/Roboticallypotent Aug 16 '26
For Sergei to raise 14 billion he will need to sell very large blocks of Alphabet stock. That stock will essentially be all gains and taxed at 50% through federal, state and local taxes. This means he will need to sell 28 billion in stock to have 14 billion left after taxes. Dumping that amount of sell orders will tank Alphabet stock so he will likely have to sell closer to what would have been 45 billion prior to the now depressed stock. Of course the reduced price of alphabet stock reduces the rest of his portfolio by 30%. So after raising $14 billion to pay a 5% wealth tax, his wealth is reduced by ~45%. There will also be negative impacts to Alphabet and Google and to the not so rich people impacted by the dumping of so much stock. Tax the rich!! (By that I mean anyone richer than me)
→ More replies (12)12
u/Sweaty-Ruin5381 Aug 16 '26
Don't forget the knock on effects of a bunch of billionaires doing this at the same time. That's going to be an overall market problem.
→ More replies (9)6
u/mclumber1 Aug 17 '26
The purpose of this proposed wealth tax isn't to fund government services, it is to punish the wealthy.
There are much better ways to raise revenue for the government, and doing so that predominantly impacts those who can afford to pay more.
→ More replies (3)
42
u/BorgerMoncher Aug 16 '26
The math isn't mathing, BernieBro. Brin would owe $72B, or 24% of his net worth. He has $128B in 10x supervoting Google shares, which are magically worth $1.28 trillion in the eyes of the benevolent California government.
Spending $100M to defeat the measure is just good sense. This isn't a one-time tax.
26
u/pacman2081 Aug 16 '26
to pay $72 bi, he has to liquidate assets and that will cost him 20-30 bi in capital gains
→ More replies (2)21
u/another-redditor3 Aug 16 '26
it would also force him out of a controlling portion of the company he created, which is the even bigger issue at stake here.
21
u/pacman2081 Aug 16 '26
of course, Redditors on here wanting this tax have achieved a lot of things in life. why would they care?
→ More replies (1)8
→ More replies (8)10
u/wishator Aug 16 '26
The people who support this bill don't believe in math. It's all about vibes and billionaires paying their fair share
5
9
u/Acceptable-Advice137 Aug 16 '26
Wealth taxes are bad and this isn’t technology related
→ More replies (3)
36
u/nemesit Aug 16 '26
theres zero chance the guy has 200+ billion lying around in cash I'd guess less than 1% of his worth is actually taxable in any way
20
u/calm_hedgehog Aug 16 '26
The proposed measure is also taxing the non-voting shares, and the special voting shares that they have as founders. Depending on how that plays out, in theory that could be a big number. Doesn't he control like 25+% of all voting shares, and Larry the other 25+%?
Not saying anything about whether that should be taxed or not.
6
u/VirtualPercentage737 Aug 16 '26
Yes. The way it is written taxes voting rights, so they would be on the hook for over $100 billion.
It doesn't matter because the proposal alone has driven Sergey, Larry and Mark Z to all move out of California. The golden goose is already cooked.
9
u/ayushgun Aug 16 '26
The problem is that this can quite negatively affect startup founders. A founder with a paper net worth of $5M will often have most of it tied up in illiquid startup shares. There may be no practical counterparty willing or permitted to buy those shares at fair value, much less at all.
→ More replies (10)3
→ More replies (7)5
u/pancak3d Aug 16 '26
Income and gains are taxable whether or not cash is involved
The proposed wealth tax includes stocks, art, property, cars, etc etc
15
10
9
u/Electronic-Funny-475 Aug 16 '26
The folks acting like California won’t waste that 14b…
How much been spent on an imaginary train
31
u/BTSArmyFan2025 Aug 16 '26
he should also mention that brin is an epstein pal, been to the island and regularly corresponded with Ghislaine Maxwell!
10
6
u/Elluminated Aug 16 '26
Good. The government just spends the TRILLIONS it already has and has NEVER kept promises re: “one time” taxes or fees. If they can get it once, why wouldn’t they try again? Bernie is a great man, but his ideas are way off on this. No one deserves others’ money -period- and it sure as fuck ain’t the government who does.
Anyone who thinks their life will change because of someone else losing something is a moron who should STFU and get off their lazy asses to earn their piece of the pie the same way the rich have. 😂🤦♀️
8
u/bourbonandpistons Aug 16 '26
It's funny you think the government would find a tax on only use it one time.
Remind me when World War II will end so we can finally stop this temporary income tax on only the rich
9
u/TangerinePlastic7552 Aug 16 '26
Instead of increasing taxes, decrease spending.
→ More replies (1)
26
u/RadioFieldCorner Aug 16 '26
The state of California has proven that it is fucking awful at managing tax revenue
$75k per homeless is spent, tell me with a straight face anything is being done right lmao.
→ More replies (6)
33
u/rcanhestro Aug 16 '26
If California passes its one-time 5% wealth tax, Brin would owe $14 billion and still be worth $270 billion
it's not like the guy has 14B on his bank account.
this means that he would need to sell 14B worth of stock (and assuming the stock doesn't crash while he is dumping it), and then he would still have to pay capital gains tax from selling that stock.
that "14b debt" would easily be worth 30-40B plus in the "real world".
and then we have the best part: how do you even calculate the amount to pay? people with their net worth in stock has their net worth going up and down (by the billions) every day.
Musk became a trillionaire overnight the moment SpaceX went public (almot 600B gaines) and lost all that gain in 1 month, and is now recovering it again.
14
u/DizzyDentist22 Aug 16 '26
Hilarious how downvoted you get for trying to bring actual nuance to this conversation
→ More replies (4)8
u/rcanhestro Aug 16 '26
it's normal.
if you want upvotes just post "billionaires bad", and get them that way.
god forbid you try and figure out how something would actually work.
→ More replies (55)11
u/khachdallak Aug 16 '26
Don't let redditors know that tax policies are more nuanced than taking shower which they barely do once per month.
3
u/OGLikeablefellow Aug 16 '26
How funny would it be if influencers unionized to accept money for the money that gets spent to defeat a wealth tax
3
u/GrooveDigger47 Aug 16 '26
so sergey would need to sell off his assets to pay that tax? and also pay taxes on what he sold off as well? im ignorant to how this would work
3
u/Awhitehill1992 Aug 17 '26
Ok… wealth taxes don’t work. Never have. Never will. Let’s not all be surprised at this post. Bernie Sanders, and others, have been after the big boys for YEARS. Failures every time.
Go back to the drawing board Bernie. We all know how this works. Most countries that have tried wealth taxes found them hard to manage, and were eventually repealed.
3
u/Maxpants8417 Aug 17 '26
Bernie loves to spend other people's money. I wish he had this energy when it came to auditing the government and their out of control spending.
3
u/HaiKarate Aug 17 '26
He’s trying to stop the movement. He doesn’t want Democrats to think that they can raise taxes on the rich without the rich putting up a helluva fight.
42
u/marcus-87 Aug 16 '26
tax them 5% every year and they still get richer
8
→ More replies (52)4
9
u/ToeAfter3131 Aug 16 '26
You honestly believe it's going to be a one-time 5% tax?
Also, do you believe that tax money is going to change your life at all? That money will change nothing besides going into the pocket of fraudsters
→ More replies (3)
20
u/e1vi5 Aug 16 '26
California already collects more in state tax revenue than the total tax takes of most small countries—and many mid-sized ones—yet chronically struggles with effective spending, recurring deficits, homelessness growth despite massive outlays, and other basic governance failures. That context undercuts the framing that a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires is an obvious fix, or that opposing it is somehow illegitimate greed.
→ More replies (5)14
u/smgkid12 Aug 16 '26
No no no! this time it will work, please just give them another 500 billion, they might just lay an inch of track on their high-speed rail!
19
u/Bubbaman78 Aug 16 '26
California would have blown the money because of poor management and be back for more.
→ More replies (3)2
u/cowinabadplace Aug 17 '26
The money is effectively a earmarked giveaway to healthcare workers and owners. So it's not like California would have blown the money. It'll be spent by the people who wrote the proposition.
5
u/stories_from_tejas Aug 16 '26
It blows my mind that left-wing voters actually believe if they take more money, somehow it will trickle down to them or poor people. The government is literally $40 trillion in debt. None of that money went to help anybody. We could actually all benefit from less taxes overall. Billionaires can hide their money and even afford more taxes, poor people can’t afford the current taxes. Anyway, my soapbox is starting to break, going to vote third-party again and wish things were different.
7
u/Dependent-Aside-9750 Aug 16 '26
Bernie sure is virtuous from Vermont, where there is currently no wealth tax. Maybe he could sell his DC home and give it to CA?
4
u/Elluminated Aug 16 '26
Exactly right, he is pretty keen on making that wealth tax for other places yet not his own backyard.
13
u/soupsiez Aug 16 '26
California has the highest tax rate already and still so much waste. Maybe figure out government spending instead of a constant need of more taxation? I know it’s not the socialist way but it’s the better way
→ More replies (1)
4
5
13
u/redvelvetcake42 Aug 16 '26
They'd spend all their wealth to never have to pay tax. To them it's the most important thing. To be a billionaire you have to be selfish beyond measure, arrogant beyond comprehension and ignorant of all your insults, failures and help you need.
14
u/tophernator Aug 16 '26
They'd spend all their wealth to never have to pay tax.
Maybe. But in this example it’s like you spending $100 to try to avoid a $14 thousand tax bill. Do you know anyone who wouldn’t do that?
→ More replies (5)
7
6
4
u/Working_Alps1753 Aug 17 '26
This man spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to avoid paying Billions. Just like how I shop at Walmart to not pay the Target Markup. See he's just like me.
2
u/Upbeat_Size_5214 Aug 16 '26
Doesn't surprise me. Sergei is old school and over time he has forgotten where all this opportunity came from, just like every other billionaire out there.
2
2
2
2
2
u/TECH5960 Aug 16 '26
Under the greediest most corrupt felon Pres billionaires have become multi-billionaires and so far one Elon Musk is now a trillionaire. What they also have in common is they don't like to pay their fair share of taxes which pisses average Americans all the way off
2
2
2
u/FickleApartment2151 Aug 17 '26
It's possible that much of his investments are not in cash but in investments, and if he sells them to pay for the wealth tax, then he will also be taxed for selling them.
10
3
u/ebfortin Aug 16 '26
The idea of a one time tax to billionaire is ridiculous anyway. It's a bandaid to let them thrive even more afterward because there won't be any other tax perception on wealth. They should change the tax code instead. Modernize it. But that's too invasive for these guys.
→ More replies (1)
5
5
u/sauniscuck Aug 16 '26
If I was a billionaire, I’d do what I can to help people that need help. I wouldn’t trust the government to do as much good with my money as I’d do.
→ More replies (19)
2
5
4
Aug 16 '26
[deleted]
2
u/edeepee Aug 16 '26
It would be most consistent to require you to realize capital gains before you use your asset as collateral for a loan. Then there would be no new tax required, you just wouldn’t be able to live off of loans backed by fake money forever.
5
6
u/hasslehof Aug 16 '26
Billionaire money is mostly made up. If they have to liquidate the whole value will drop because it will in some cases move markets. Not saying something like this shouldn’t be done. But it will have wider negative impact for non-billionaires, too.
→ More replies (5)4
6
u/DuncesNDragons Aug 16 '26
Are we proposing a tax on net worth or what people actually have as liquid assets?
Taxing what someone is "worth" is NEVER a good idea.
8
u/JKlerk Aug 16 '26
Net worth. Imagine having to sell assets because you're getting taxed on unrealized capital gains.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/stuporman86 Aug 16 '26
This is a fucking weird way to do a tax like this. It doesn’t hit future billionaires, but retroactively applied (I’m assuming so that billionaires don’t move out of the state to escape?). This is just bad structuring and all so that the state can have a pile of money that they likely will mismanage / earn poor returns on. To say nothing of what happens when you make Brin sell 3 days of average total Google trading volume to finance it, or that he’ll owe fed taxes as a follow-on so probably need to pump that number up.
I’m fairly against the concept of a wealth tax in the first place, but if you have to do it, don’t do it bad like this.
2
u/Penis-Dance Aug 16 '26
I don't think he has $14B in a bank account just sitting there collecting dust.
→ More replies (1)
3
1.1k
u/[deleted] Aug 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment