Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Larry Page has moved to Florida

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Larry Page has moved to Florida

#91

Post by kcplate »

lapcat wrote: post #90
kcplate wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So is your view is that a bunch of people much less wealthy than Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities is equivalent to Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities??? What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact. > In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as t…

> What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact. Yes, he co-founded Google in 1998, nobody disputes that. But how is that relevant to his personal tax rate in 2026? You're changing the subject, because we were talking about things Page is doing now , not what he did in the past. I was responding…

> Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now.

I think people are too caught up in the relative amounts here and are missing the forest for the trees. I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes. There is no doubt that he has significantly contributed to California’s economy both by his own efforts as an entrepreneur as well as his own participation in California’s economy. Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it. He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others, but thats just how this all works. What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay and what his perception of California’s tax burden is versus other states.

It’s the downstream opportunity loss that someone like him can create for California if he leaves and then decides take investment elsewhere. This is not about the future taxes that Larry Page the individual or family won’t pay in California. It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.

If you are California’s political leadership you better be concerned about why a Larry Page feels the need to leave and not have the “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out” attitude. The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.

Re: Larry Page has moved to Florida

#92

Post by lapcat »

kcplate wrote: post #91
lapcat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact. Yes, he co-founded Google in 1998, nobody disputes that. But how is that relevant to his personal tax rate in 2026? You're changing the subject, because we were talking about things Page is doing now , not what he did in the past. I was responding…

> Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now. I think people are too caught up in the relative amounts here and are missing the forest for the trees. I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes. There is no doubt that he has significantly contributed to California’s economy…

> I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes.

I'm not so sure. That's why I was asking before for evidence.

> Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it.

In what sense is this different from any other California resident?

> He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others

That's a vast understatement.

> but thats just how this all works.

That's how it has worked. The wealth tax is trying to change it.

> What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay

How is that what matters? Yes, every person should pay what they're legally obligated to pay. I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the discussion, or how it distinguishes Larry Page from any other person.

> It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.

There's no evidence that Larry Page can or will create another Google now.

It's also worth noting that Page was just a relatively poor college student when he founded Google. It wasn't because of his wealth. Perhaps he'd have more incentive to found another Google if he were deprived of all his wealth again. On the other hand, perhaps he just had one really great idea in his life.

> The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.

It's one dude. Maybe a few more dudes will go too. In any case, California will be fine. The largest state in the nation does not depend on one dude.

Larry Page came to California from Michigan, not for the tax rates, but to attend Stanford. Last time I checked, Stanford still exists, and is still in California.

Re: Larry Page has moved to Florida

#93

Post by kcplate »

lapcat wrote: post #92
kcplate wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now. I think people are too caught up in the relative amounts here and are missing the forest for the trees. I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes. There is no doubt that he has significantly contributed to California’s economy…

> I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes. I'm not so sure. That's why I was asking before for evidence. > Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it. In what sense is this different from any other California resident? > He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others That's a vast understatement. > but thats just how this all works…

Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this.

California can certainly choose how to tax it’s residents and businesses and they will own the results of those decisions. Personally I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing and will help encourage new business investment. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

Re: Larry Page has moved to Florida

#94

Post by lapcat »

kcplate wrote: post #93
lapcat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes. I'm not so sure. That's why I was asking before for evidence. > Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it. In what sense is this different from any other California resident? > He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others That's a vast understatement. > but thats just how this all works…

Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this. California can certainly choose how to tax it’s residents and businesses and they will own the results of those decisions. Personally I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing and will help encourage new business investment. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

> Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this.

The subject of the HN submission is the California wealth tax, which affects only billionaires. There are only about 200 in California. Moreover, only a few of those billionaires have left California, or are threatening to leave. So, I'm "laser focused" on the subject of the HN submission and puzzled by your remark here. Note that Larry Page's name is literally included in the submission title. I don't know what else I should be talking about here.

> I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing

That isn't the purpose of the wealth tax. And again, there are only about 200 billionaires in California, so even if they all left, which isn't happening, that's practically nothing compared to the total population of almost 40 million.

I haven't investigated, but my suspicion would be that high housing prices are a significant reason for people leaving California. Creating another Google wouldn't help at all with that. To the contrary, it would probably drive up the housing prices even more. Even big tech company employees find the housing prices ridiculous!

Re: Larry Page has moved to Florida

#95

Post by kcplate »

lapcat wrote: post #94
kcplate wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this. California can certainly choose how to tax it’s residents and businesses and they will own the results of those decisions. Personally I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing and will help encourage new business investment. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

> Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this. The subject of the HN submission is the California wealth tax, which affects only billionaires. There are only about 200 in California. Moreover, only a few of those billionaires have left California, or are threatening to leave. So, I'm "laser focused" on the subject of the HN submission and puzzled by your remark here. Note that Larry Page's nam…

> That isn't the purpose of the wealth tax

No, its purpose is to steal money from rich people because the legislature cant manage to govern in a fiscally responsible manner.

Re: Larry Page has moved to Florida

#96

Post by lapcat »

kcplate wrote: post #95
lapcat wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this. The subject of the HN submission is the California wealth tax, which affects only billionaires. There are only about 200 in California. Moreover, only a few of those billionaires have left California, or are threatening to leave. So, I'm "laser focused" on the subject of the HN submission and puzzled by your remark here. Note that Larry Page's nam…

> That isn't the purpose of the wealth tax No, its purpose is to steal money from rich people because the legislature cant manage to govern in a fiscally responsible manner.

> its purpose is to steal money from rich people

I wish you would have stated this in your first comment.

Re: Larry Page has moved to Florida

#97

Post by kcplate »

lapcat wrote: post #96
kcplate wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That isn't the purpose of the wealth tax No, its purpose is to steal money from rich people because the legislature cant manage to govern in a fiscally responsible manner.

> its purpose is to steal money from rich people I wish you would have stated this in your first comment.

Stated the obvious? Why is that necessary?

They have money that you don't think certain people deserve and you want it for your own purposes. Your method of separating the money from them is by force. Not sure what else you would call it?

Post reply on HN