- they move their official residence and happen to stay most of the time at the "totally just rented" place in the same state anyway
- or keep telling everyone how they're going to move, but don't actually do.
Because let's be honest - if there wasn't a big reason to live where they do, and it wasn't a pain to work from another state, they wouldn't be there to begin with. They're paying the higher taxes because they benefit(ed) in some way.
They also benefit from being famous and threatening to leave.
A number of my friends who belong in these very high upper brackets have suggested to me, more in sorrow than in anger, that if I am reelected they will have to move to some other Nation because of high taxes here. I shall miss them very much but if they go they will soon come back. For a year or two of paying taxes in almost any other country in the world will make them yearn once more for the good old taxes of the U.S.A.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Address at Worcester, Massachusetts
October 21, 1936
It's always a bluff like a kid throwing a temper tantrum going to "hold their breath".
They threaten to do this every single time there is an election in NYC. And studies have shown that they are lying. To try and manipulate people. The rich are actually far less likely to move.
Every election you have celebrities and wealthy individuals threaten to leave the country, etc. Nearly none of them follow-through, and of the ones that do, many ultimately move back.
Page left California specifically because of the so-called "Billionaire Tax", and is taking with him his family (which will inherit his vast riches), his philanthropy, his non-profits, many jobs, taxes and more. The effect will be generations of lost benefits to California.
Yeah; there's absolutely no way he could possibly support philanthropic efforts in one state from another. Nope; everyone now loses out because of it!
There is absolutely 0 reason that someone worth $270 billion needs to worry about the 5% tax. The 5% tax will reduce his estimated worth by $13.5B bringing him to a paltry $256.5B.
To put $256.5B in perspective: over two /lifetimes/, he would need to spend around $4.5MM a day to exhaust that number, assuming it did not grow exponentially over that same time.
1. The tax could cause him to sell equity he doesn't want to. It's not like he has $270B in a checking account.
2. If they do it once then why not again next year? Maybe next time it's for only $100 million or $10 million or $1 million. Eventually everyone is paying 5% of their wealth every year. Why not? That's how we got the current income tax.
3. It's the principle. Resisting these efforts sends a signal that they aren't a good idea.
4. Do we really think the money is better off in control of the incompetent CA government than invested in private enterprise or donated to charity? I don't see how it's better for it to line Newsom's Swiss bank account.
This is a correct observation. The question is whether it’s meaningful to pursue local coherence when locality is vague. E.g. can someone at that level just declare permanent residence in a place but maintain their lifestyle in another? At country level they cover that with tax residence, I am not sure whether that’s the case between states in the US. Even as such, people who get on their plane as frequently as I get in my car are not subject to the same residence considerations.
This kinda misses the larger point. How are billionaires created? By the structure of the capitalist firm. The capitalist gets all of the wealth created by the organization and unilaterally can decide what to do with it, running the organization as a dictator. That is the bug. "Billionaire" is simply the most obvious and egregious form.
The class interest of the billionaire capitalist is the same as the class interest of the millionaire capitalist is the same as the class interest of the small business owner. Unless all of the capitalists leave, the capitalist class will still control the entire economy of California.
People don't realize that "philanthropy" is a standard way for ultra-rich to peddle influence and store their money to avoid taxes. Many philanthropies invest their donations and actually make money off investments every year, spending little. It is an investment vehicle. And an easy way to accept bribes. And for influence, take for example Bill Gates' "philanthropy" to fund charter schools and undermine public schools, ultimately enriching charter school capitalists.
This thread showcases exactly why they do this: It is enough to simply slap the name "philanthropy" on something in order to have people thinking it is good and defending you. It is an effective PR stunt, which is why they all do it. Don't be the fool.
> it has cost California both Larry's presence and all the tax revenue it made from him.
1. Google itself isn't moving. I don't think Larry is closely involved anymore, and a move out of state seems to prove that.
2. How much tax revenue did California even make from him? If he doesn't sell stock, then he has no capital gains to tax. That's the whole point of the wealth tax. The ultra-wealthy are infamous for tax avoidance schemes such as rotating loans against their stock to avoid capital gains.
IMO capital gains taxes are bad as well, they discourage efficient investment allocation (you are stuck with what you have now).
It would be better if we mainly taxed consumption directly. If you are a billionaire but spend $100k/yr I am fine with you paying the same taxes as anyone else spending $100k/yr.
The Page Family operates a number of philanthropic initiatives, non-profits, and other companies outside of Alphabet. All of which pay taxes, provide jobs, and benefits to Californians.
It's short-sighted to think Page doesn't pay taxes nor contribute to California in significant, meaningful ways.
California just traded what was supposed to be a one-time (lol) tax on total net worth - not liquid assets or even income - for generations of extracting value from the Page family.
I get it's fashionable to hate on billionaires right now - but this is just plainly terrible government policy. California should be encouraging people like Page to move here - not push them away.
It's also short-sighted to assume Google will remain in Mountain View just because it's there today. What makes SV so special today that Boston, Austin, Denver, Orlando, etc don't offer? What about the "Next Google"? Will it's founders even start a business in California?
That's what we should be concerned about - create a climate where it's not even a question where to build your company; California should be the obvious right answer.
What philanthropic initiatives or non-profits? Regarding philanthropy, this Forbes estimate [0] suggests Page is not particularly engaged in philanthropy compared to others in his wealth class.
> It's short-sighted to think Page doesn't pay taxes nor contribute to California in significant, meaningful ways.
Provide documentation and numbers, otherwise this alleged "significant" contribution is just hand-waving.
> generations of extracting value from the Page family
If Larry can just up and leave now, on very short notice, then there's absolutely zero guarantee of any future "generations" of value.
> I get it's fashionable to hate on billionaires right now
Fashionable? Why do you think it's fashionable now? For no reason?
> California should be encouraging people like Page to move here
It's a total perversion of the fundamental idea of capitalism that governments are competing for companies and wealthy people. That's not how capitalist competition is supposed to work.
> What about the "Next Google"? Will it's founders even start a business in California?
Larry and Sergey met at Stanford as students. They didn't choose a state because of tax policy.
Let me offer a public benefit to driving away the billionaires who refuse to pay higher taxes: less local spending on politicians, i.e., corruption.
#2 is a problem with California’s tax laws. A marginal land value tax would easily tax wealth without wealthy people having to sell assets. Also, more economic activity, such as rich people buying products and services, results in sales tax and income for other Californians.
NYC had a similar budgetary/fiscal issue too and they thought they'd manage it by assessing more taxes on companies and people. The result was corporate as well as individual flight.
It's tough to slim down on spending. Be it individuals or governments and quasi-governmental organizations. Companies can swiftly implement spending cuts and RIFs --sometimes aggressively.
Governments, though, there are threads throughout --elected officials often trade support for positions and favoritism and if they take those away, so do many of their fiercest people who get out the vote. Also, their voters are averse to having the services they've grown accustomed to getting cut.
So sometimes you need that official who knows he or she is a one termer but will go in and cut and cut. People will hate them but it will allow the government a chance to make a turnaround.
Google co-founder Larry Page moved to Florida from California in early 2026, purchasing over $188 million in Miami property. He left California to avoid a proposed 5% state wealth tax targeting billionaires, shifting his primary residence and assets to Florida, which has no state income tax.
Makes sense to me. Several businesses and individuals from NYC have also moved to Florida for similar reasons. If I were hard working or creative as them to be as wealthy I would do the same and I know others here would too, they just wouldn't likely admit or say it. None of that prevents one from having a satellite office in the former state.
If I were as wealthy as them I would not mind paying a 5% tax after years of tax avoidance. But that’s just one of the many reasons why I am not as wealthy as they are.
Something needs to be done about the historic inequality in this country. It will undue all the “innovation” (ie selling ads and addicting people to the internet) that these tech billionaires have contributed.
Inequality will always be a thing. I am not saying it should be, just that it will be. Different people have different skill-sets, are in the right or wrong places at the right or wrong time, have different connections with people and a million other factors. Some are born with good RNG, some with a bad roll.
We as a society can barely get along with one another as this world gets more inter-connected and as more incompatible cultures are forced to mix with one another. There are too many conflicting and incompatible situations to fix before we can even get close to equality. That is the reality I can see. Perhaps if we divided ourselves up into a matrices of 512 or 1024 groups and each group populated a planet of their own then perhaps some of those planets could achieve the desired equality. Maybe. No idea how long it would last.
Even the sci-fi dream of Gene Roddenberry's totally equal future came with a lot of pain, wars, chaos and after all that there was still significant inequality and violence and this was from someone that was a staunch believe in all forms of equality. Even he had to keep it real enough or people would not be able to suspend disbelief yet still fictional enough to allow escapism.
I'm perfect fine not being as wealthy as Larry Page and having all the stress and drama that comes with it.
If you want to engage honestly, you can start by acknowledging that there is an enormous gap between believing that "record breaking wealth inequality is bad and causing societal problems" vs "no inequality should exist in any capacity."
If I am being honest inequality will always vary wildly based on the monetary policies and all the things I mentioned. To me anything else is getting into vague unattainable unrealistic ideologies. No harm in dreaming, everyone should. No harm in envy either even if some think it is unhealthy. It's all human nature.
If someone has a gazillion gazillion gazillion mega-bucks that does not harm me in any way shape or form. More power to them. I would be fine with them also collecting medicare and social security especially if they, like me, had to pay into social security their entire working life and could not opt out.
If we can hold out for machines like a holodeck then we can truly live any fantasy and that may be a nice form of escapism. No idea how long it will be for such machines to exist.
This part from Paul Graham on his own move was eye opening:
"After we'd been in England for several years, I asked the people who do our taxes to check, and they told me that I actually saved money by moving to England. That's how high California state taxes are already."
I wonder how he figures that. I'm well paid and my CA taxes are 1/3 as much as my Federal taxes. Especially in the current regime, CA taxes are not first my point of complaint.
This just reinforces my opinion that we shouldn't listen to billionaires about anything.
The story here should be “Larry Page, a billionaire, was a legal resident of California to begin with”
He can live anywhere he wants to and have residency anywhere he wants to. This sounds like “Larry can’t afford to live in Cali and is forced to “move” to Florida and never set foot in Cali ever again” He’ll move his mail and get FL Driver License and continue to chill in Cali (which he should have done decade ago
What a vomit-inducing billionaire fondling.
It’s patently and provably false the taxing billionaires will make them flee and therefore society is worse off for that.
It’s a disgusting narrative by greedy antisocial people who have lost every and any contact with the meaning of living in society.
You wanna make things better for the world? Then fuck your disingenuous startups, pay more taxes.
Fucking leeches, each and everyone of these scumbags. PG absolutely included.
Oh no, his assistant will be buying all his groceries at a Florida Whole Foods instead of a California one and he'll be topping up his private jet at the Miami Airport instead of Oakland oh noooo how will California survive
>"He wasn't just pretending to move to Florida."
Do people often pretend that they're going to move? Seems like a weird thing to say.
There are two pretend types:
- they move their official residence and happen to stay most of the time at the "totally just rented" place in the same state anyway
- or keep telling everyone how they're going to move, but don't actually do.
Because let's be honest - if there wasn't a big reason to live where they do, and it wasn't a pain to work from another state, they wouldn't be there to begin with. They're paying the higher taxes because they benefit(ed) in some way.
They also benefit from being famous and threatening to leave.
its a luxury of the ultra-rich.
they threaten to move to push legislation which way they want.
A number of my friends who belong in these very high upper brackets have suggested to me, more in sorrow than in anger, that if I am reelected they will have to move to some other Nation because of high taxes here. I shall miss them very much but if they go they will soon come back. For a year or two of paying taxes in almost any other country in the world will make them yearn once more for the good old taxes of the U.S.A.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Address at Worcester, Massachusetts
October 21, 1936
It's always a bluff like a kid throwing a temper tantrum going to "hold their breath".
> Do people often pretend that they're going to move?
It isn't unheard of.
Adam Carolla has been threatening to move out of California for like at least a decade at this point.
[dead]
They threaten to do this every single time there is an election in NYC. And studies have shown that they are lying. To try and manipulate people. The rich are actually far less likely to move.
[1] https://fiscalpolicy.org/migration
Every election you have celebrities and wealthy individuals threaten to leave the country, etc. Nearly none of them follow-through, and of the ones that do, many ultimately move back.
Page left California specifically because of the so-called "Billionaire Tax", and is taking with him his family (which will inherit his vast riches), his philanthropy, his non-profits, many jobs, taxes and more. The effect will be generations of lost benefits to California.
Yeah; there's absolutely no way he could possibly support philanthropic efforts in one state from another. Nope; everyone now loses out because of it!
There is absolutely 0 reason that someone worth $270 billion needs to worry about the 5% tax. The 5% tax will reduce his estimated worth by $13.5B bringing him to a paltry $256.5B.
To put $256.5B in perspective: over two /lifetimes/, he would need to spend around $4.5MM a day to exhaust that number, assuming it did not grow exponentially over that same time.
1. The tax could cause him to sell equity he doesn't want to. It's not like he has $270B in a checking account.
2. If they do it once then why not again next year? Maybe next time it's for only $100 million or $10 million or $1 million. Eventually everyone is paying 5% of their wealth every year. Why not? That's how we got the current income tax.
3. It's the principle. Resisting these efforts sends a signal that they aren't a good idea.
4. Do we really think the money is better off in control of the incompetent CA government than invested in private enterprise or donated to charity? I don't see how it's better for it to line Newsom's Swiss bank account.
It’s supposedly a one-time tax; but, you’re right; who knows what they’ll do.
But his net worth has effectively more than doubled in 1y. I think he’ll be just fine.
> The tax could cause him to sell equity he doesn't want to. It's not like he has $270B in a checking account.
How annual income should return more than that if he can do anything at all.
According to later replies on X it's based on voting control percentage for dual class shares, so it's 40% tax, not 5%. So more than $100 billion.
Better dead in California than alive in Florida, to paraphrase.
If you think wealth inequality is a societal problem, billionaires leaving to avoid taxes is a feature, not a bug.
This is a correct observation. The question is whether it’s meaningful to pursue local coherence when locality is vague. E.g. can someone at that level just declare permanent residence in a place but maintain their lifestyle in another? At country level they cover that with tax residence, I am not sure whether that’s the case between states in the US. Even as such, people who get on their plane as frequently as I get in my car are not subject to the same residence considerations.
Are they still able to own corporations in California while living out of state? Then it's still a bug.
This kinda misses the larger point. How are billionaires created? By the structure of the capitalist firm. The capitalist gets all of the wealth created by the organization and unilaterally can decide what to do with it, running the organization as a dictator. That is the bug. "Billionaire" is simply the most obvious and egregious form.
The class interest of the billionaire capitalist is the same as the class interest of the millionaire capitalist is the same as the class interest of the small business owner. Unless all of the capitalists leave, the capitalist class will still control the entire economy of California.
Not really, so long as they influence affairs on planet earth, their wealth and influence will continue to cause compounding problems.
People don't realize that "philanthropy" is a standard way for ultra-rich to peddle influence and store their money to avoid taxes. Many philanthropies invest their donations and actually make money off investments every year, spending little. It is an investment vehicle. And an easy way to accept bribes. And for influence, take for example Bill Gates' "philanthropy" to fund charter schools and undermine public schools, ultimately enriching charter school capitalists.
This thread showcases exactly why they do this: It is enough to simply slap the name "philanthropy" on something in order to have people thinking it is good and defending you. It is an effective PR stunt, which is why they all do it. Don't be the fool.
Related previously:
Larry Page leaves California to protect $12.5B from proposed wealth tax
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46556803
> it has cost California both Larry's presence and all the tax revenue it made from him.
1. Google itself isn't moving. I don't think Larry is closely involved anymore, and a move out of state seems to prove that.
2. How much tax revenue did California even make from him? If he doesn't sell stock, then he has no capital gains to tax. That's the whole point of the wealth tax. The ultra-wealthy are infamous for tax avoidance schemes such as rotating loans against their stock to avoid capital gains.
IMO capital gains taxes are bad as well, they discourage efficient investment allocation (you are stuck with what you have now).
It would be better if we mainly taxed consumption directly. If you are a billionaire but spend $100k/yr I am fine with you paying the same taxes as anyone else spending $100k/yr.
The Page Family operates a number of philanthropic initiatives, non-profits, and other companies outside of Alphabet. All of which pay taxes, provide jobs, and benefits to Californians.
It's short-sighted to think Page doesn't pay taxes nor contribute to California in significant, meaningful ways.
California just traded what was supposed to be a one-time (lol) tax on total net worth - not liquid assets or even income - for generations of extracting value from the Page family.
I get it's fashionable to hate on billionaires right now - but this is just plainly terrible government policy. California should be encouraging people like Page to move here - not push them away.
It's also short-sighted to assume Google will remain in Mountain View just because it's there today. What makes SV so special today that Boston, Austin, Denver, Orlando, etc don't offer? What about the "Next Google"? Will it's founders even start a business in California?
That's what we should be concerned about - create a climate where it's not even a question where to build your company; California should be the obvious right answer.
What philanthropic initiatives or non-profits? Regarding philanthropy, this Forbes estimate [0] suggests Page is not particularly engaged in philanthropy compared to others in his wealth class.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/ame...
I hope he sees this, bro.
> philanthropic initiatives, non-profits
> All of which pay taxes
I think not.
> It's short-sighted to think Page doesn't pay taxes nor contribute to California in significant, meaningful ways.
Provide documentation and numbers, otherwise this alleged "significant" contribution is just hand-waving.
> generations of extracting value from the Page family
If Larry can just up and leave now, on very short notice, then there's absolutely zero guarantee of any future "generations" of value.
> I get it's fashionable to hate on billionaires right now
Fashionable? Why do you think it's fashionable now? For no reason?
> California should be encouraging people like Page to move here
It's a total perversion of the fundamental idea of capitalism that governments are competing for companies and wealthy people. That's not how capitalist competition is supposed to work.
> What about the "Next Google"? Will it's founders even start a business in California?
Larry and Sergey met at Stanford as students. They didn't choose a state because of tax policy.
Let me offer a public benefit to driving away the billionaires who refuse to pay higher taxes: less local spending on politicians, i.e., corruption.
#2 is a problem with California’s tax laws. A marginal land value tax would easily tax wealth without wealthy people having to sell assets. Also, more economic activity, such as rich people buying products and services, results in sales tax and income for other Californians.
Take that up with the CA voters circa 1979.
he was freeloading in CA and now will be freeloading in FL
NYC had a similar budgetary/fiscal issue too and they thought they'd manage it by assessing more taxes on companies and people. The result was corporate as well as individual flight.
It's tough to slim down on spending. Be it individuals or governments and quasi-governmental organizations. Companies can swiftly implement spending cuts and RIFs --sometimes aggressively.
Governments, though, there are threads throughout --elected officials often trade support for positions and favoritism and if they take those away, so do many of their fiercest people who get out the vote. Also, their voters are averse to having the services they've grown accustomed to getting cut.
So sometimes you need that official who knows he or she is a one termer but will go in and cut and cut. People will hate them but it will allow the government a chance to make a turnaround.
Oh no?
From elsewhere:
Google co-founder Larry Page moved to Florida from California in early 2026, purchasing over $188 million in Miami property. He left California to avoid a proposed 5% state wealth tax targeting billionaires, shifting his primary residence and assets to Florida, which has no state income tax.
Makes sense to me. Several businesses and individuals from NYC have also moved to Florida for similar reasons. If I were hard working or creative as them to be as wealthy I would do the same and I know others here would too, they just wouldn't likely admit or say it. None of that prevents one from having a satellite office in the former state.
If I were as wealthy as them I would not mind paying a 5% tax after years of tax avoidance. But that’s just one of the many reasons why I am not as wealthy as they are.
Something needs to be done about the historic inequality in this country. It will undue all the “innovation” (ie selling ads and addicting people to the internet) that these tech billionaires have contributed.
Inequality will always be a thing. I am not saying it should be, just that it will be. Different people have different skill-sets, are in the right or wrong places at the right or wrong time, have different connections with people and a million other factors. Some are born with good RNG, some with a bad roll.
We as a society can barely get along with one another as this world gets more inter-connected and as more incompatible cultures are forced to mix with one another. There are too many conflicting and incompatible situations to fix before we can even get close to equality. That is the reality I can see. Perhaps if we divided ourselves up into a matrices of 512 or 1024 groups and each group populated a planet of their own then perhaps some of those planets could achieve the desired equality. Maybe. No idea how long it would last.
Even the sci-fi dream of Gene Roddenberry's totally equal future came with a lot of pain, wars, chaos and after all that there was still significant inequality and violence and this was from someone that was a staunch believe in all forms of equality. Even he had to keep it real enough or people would not be able to suspend disbelief yet still fictional enough to allow escapism.
I'm perfect fine not being as wealthy as Larry Page and having all the stress and drama that comes with it.
> Inequality will always be a thing.
If you want to engage honestly, you can start by acknowledging that there is an enormous gap between believing that "record breaking wealth inequality is bad and causing societal problems" vs "no inequality should exist in any capacity."
If I am being honest inequality will always vary wildly based on the monetary policies and all the things I mentioned. To me anything else is getting into vague unattainable unrealistic ideologies. No harm in dreaming, everyone should. No harm in envy either even if some think it is unhealthy. It's all human nature.
If someone has a gazillion gazillion gazillion mega-bucks that does not harm me in any way shape or form. More power to them. I would be fine with them also collecting medicare and social security especially if they, like me, had to pay into social security their entire working life and could not opt out.
If we can hold out for machines like a holodeck then we can truly live any fantasy and that may be a nice form of escapism. No idea how long it will be for such machines to exist.
HN rage bait
This part from Paul Graham on his own move was eye opening:
"After we'd been in England for several years, I asked the people who do our taxes to check, and they told me that I actually saved money by moving to England. That's how high California state taxes are already."
Yeah sounds like he was really scrimping.
I wonder how he figures that. I'm well paid and my CA taxes are 1/3 as much as my Federal taxes. Especially in the current regime, CA taxes are not first my point of complaint.
This just reinforces my opinion that we shouldn't listen to billionaires about anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo-KmOd3i7s
The story here should be “Larry Page, a billionaire, was a legal resident of California to begin with”
He can live anywhere he wants to and have residency anywhere he wants to. This sounds like “Larry can’t afford to live in Cali and is forced to “move” to Florida and never set foot in Cali ever again” He’ll move his mail and get FL Driver License and continue to chill in Cali (which he should have done decade ago
This almost feels like satire.
What a vomit-inducing billionaire fondling. It’s patently and provably false the taxing billionaires will make them flee and therefore society is worse off for that. It’s a disgusting narrative by greedy antisocial people who have lost every and any contact with the meaning of living in society. You wanna make things better for the world? Then fuck your disingenuous startups, pay more taxes. Fucking leeches, each and everyone of these scumbags. PG absolutely included.
[dead]
[flagged]
Does anything this dope post automatically make it to the front page?
Oh no, his assistant will be buying all his groceries at a Florida Whole Foods instead of a California one and he'll be topping up his private jet at the Miami Airport instead of Oakland oh noooo how will California survive